Skip to main content

Full text of "Khrushchev in New York"

See other formats

i I - , ; - fL\ 


A documentary record of PJikita S. Khrushchev's 
trip to New York, September 19th to October 
13th, I960, including all his speeches and 
proposals to the United Nations and major 
addresses and news conferences. 



xmi ******* 



NEW YORK, 1960 

A copy of this material has been filed with the Department of 
Justice where the registration statement of Crosscurrents Press, Inc., 
156 Fifth Avenue, New York 10, N.Y., as a publishing representative 
of Mezhdunarodkaya Kniga, Moscow, is available for inspection. 
[Registration does not indicate approval or disapproval of this material 
by the United States Government. 


i "i i' word e 

■ o 

\ 1 1 1 v:tl in New York, September 19, 1960 7 

Meeting with Fidel Castro, September 20 , , \q 

Dlwirraament, Colonialism, and Other International 

Problems. Statement in the General Debate at the 

Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General 

Assembly, September 23 , ij 

1 Umientof the USSR Government on Disarmament, 
-Submitted for Consideration of the United Nations 
< General Assembly, September 23 53 

1 l i. Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete 

I lisarmament, September 23 72 

tin l.u;ii.ion on Granting Independence to Colonial 

( inun tries and Peoples, September 23 gj 

\n American Antique Dealer Presents Khrushchev with a 

Peace Pipe, September 23 95 

. Conference at Glen Cove, September 24 97 

■ i< n ■■ < inference at Glen Cove (II) , September 25 103 

■I" ' - It at Cyrus Eaton Luncheon, September 26 107 

1 <> President of UN General Assembly, September 26 . . .115 

''»ing Representation of the People's Republic of 

I Uiina in the United Nations. Speech at the UN 

I leneral Assembly, October 1 1 jg 

1 ■ - lily on the Question of the Structure of UN Governing 
Bodies. Speech at the UN General Assembly, October 3 .127 

ph to Letter and Draft Resolution Received from the 
Heads of Government of Ghana, India, Indonesia, the 
' I m led Arab Republic and Yugoslavia, October 3 139 


Meeting with Members of United Nations Journalists 

Association, October 7 144 

Television Interview with David Susskind, October 9 161 

On the Procedure for Discussing the Disarmament Question. 

Speech at the UN General Assembly, October 11 185 

Statement for Radio Cuba, October 11 190 

Reply on Disarmament. Speech at the UN General 

Assembly, October 11 193 

News Conference, October 11 - • • ■ -200 

The Question of Granting Independence to Colonial 
Countries and Peoples. Speech at the UN General 
Assembly, October 12 . ... .4)1 

Remarks on the Colonial Question. Speech at the UN 

General Assembly, October 12 ^ Utt 

Reply on the Colonial Question. Speech at the UN General 

Assembly, October 12 ^ uy 

Speech at Dinner for Delegations of New UN Members, 

October 12 - 214 

Further Remarks on the Colonial Question. Speech at the 

UN General Assembly, October 13 - - 218 

The Threat to Universal Peace. Speech at the UN General 

Assembly, October 13 22 ° 

A Reply on the Question of. Aggression. Speech at the UN 

General Assembly, October 13 224 

Departure from New York, October 13 239 

Speech on Return to Moscow, October 20 242 


Under the title khrushchev in new york, the publisher is 
i risking available all the important statements made by Nikita S. 
Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, 
during his stay in New York, September 19 to October 13, 1960, 
.ii which time he was Chairman of the Soviet delegation to the 
fifteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly. The 
following documents are included: a complete collection of his 
I ) N statements; all Soviet proposals to the UN during this period; 
Other major addresses and news conferences in New York; a 
1 ul low-up report delivered after Khrushchev's return to Moscow. 

This collection comprises a full review of the present world 
lituation as seen by the Government of the USSR. It is a vital 
part of an unprecedented chapter in diplomatic history, written 
by i lie largest gathering of world leaders ever to take place. 

The release of this collection, of course, does not imply either 
■ ■■■■ptance or rejection of the ideas in it. It is published in the 
belief that we must be fully informed— fully informed about all 
Upects of developments that have such a direct bearing on our 
I mi lire and the fate of mankind. 

The Publisher. 

ILLUSTRATIONS; Khrushchev in meetings with the following: First page, top 
-Jawaharlal Nehru (India); bottom-Cyrus Eaton (second from right, 
USA). Second page, top (left to right) -Sukarno (Indonesia); Kwame 
Nkrumah (Ghana); bottom- Joseph Broz Tito (Yuogslavia) ; Gamal Abdel 
Nasser (UAR). Third page, top-Fidel Castro (Cuba); bottom-Sylvanus 
Olympio (Togo). Fourth page, top-Ali O-par Hagi Far ah (Somalia); 
bottom— Mr. and Mrs. Watson Pierce (USA). 




September 19, 1960 

Arrival in New York 

Nikita S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers 
ol the USSR, and head of the Soviet delegation to the Fifteenth 
Session of the General Assembly, arrived in New York on Sep- 
icmber 19 on the turboelectric ship Baltika. With him were the 

I ol lowing heads of delegations: N. V. Podgorny of the Ukrainian 
Republic; Kirill T. Mazurov of the Byelorussian Republic; Todor 
Zhivkov of Bulgaria; Janos Kadar of Hungary; and Gheorghe 
Ghcorghiu-Dej of Roumania. 

The Baltika arrived at Pier 73 on the East River, not far 

I I "in the UN Building, at 9:17 A.M., New York time. Despite the 
heavy rain, many representatives of the diplomatic corps, newsmen 
.mil radio and television correspondents were gathered at the pier. 

The welcoming party included Valerian A. Zorin, USSR 
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; Mikhail A. Menshikov, Soviet 
Ambassador to the United States; Antonm Novotny, President of 
I izechoslovakia and Wladyslaw Gomulka, head of the Polish dele- 
!■. ition to the United Nations. 

Also among those greeting the Chairman and his colleagues 
writ' Cyrus Eaton, American industrialist, and Mrs. Eaton, 

After an exchange of greetings, Khrushchev made a brief 
i.i lenient to those assembled: 

Statement at the Pier 

This is my second visit to the United States of America. Last 
•■nl was here as a guest of your country's government. This time 
I have arrived in New York in a new capacity—as head of the 
loviet delegation to the session of the UN General Assembly. 

The thoughts and aspirations of a majority of people in all 
fries are now focused on one goal— how to achieve a situation 

III which lasting peace will be ensured all over the world. Natur- 
ally, people turn their eyes, first of all, to two countries—the United 


States and the Soviet Union. They do this not because our coun- 
tries are selected and marked by Providence, but because they are 
the strongest economically and are armed with mighty modern 

Should the differences between us continue to grow and the 
statesmen o£ the two countries not try to stop the development 
of poor relations between our countries, everyone realizes what a 
threat that would be not only to the United States and the Soviet 
Union, but also to the whole world. We understand this and 
are trying to do everything to shape the development of relations 
in the direction of a peaceful adjustment of outstanding problems 
and the establishment of world peace. 

One cannot give preference to feelings and emotions in poli- 
tics. One should be guided here primarily by common sense and 
make a calm assessment of all the circumstances. Such is the lot 
of statesmen: they must see not only their close friends, but also 
have to go where the interests of their people tell them to go; 
they do it for the common cause of all nations— for the cause of 
consolidating world peace. 

The Soviet Union attaches very great importance to the ques- 
tion of establishing lasting peace. In order to ensure such peace 
it is necessary that all countries, and primarily the United States 
and its allies, realize the need for agreeing on disarmament under 
strict international control. 

Lasting peace on earth will be established only when arma- 
ments are scrapped. But if these armaments are loaded and are in 
a holster on your belt, then neither one side nor the other will feel 
sure that a conflict will not accidentally break out somewhere. 

That is why the Government of the Soviet Union has asked 
the United Nations to submit for consideration by the General 
Assembly the supreme question of contemporary international 
relations— the problem of general and complete disarmament under 
corresponding strict international control. 

The Soviet Government is gratified to note that a number 
of countries have taken a very serious approach to this problem, 
and that leading statesmen are heading the delegations of their 
countries to the UN General Assembly. 

Unfortunately, certain statesmen mere Jy speak in defense of 
the United Nations and call for the consolidation of its prestige, 

I mi i in reality they are against having the disarmament problem 
discussed effectively at the UN General Assembly. What is this 
I ml a disparagement of the role of the international organization 
tailed upon to ensure peace among the nations? 

That is why, frankly speaking, I felt very strange when I read 
recently the statement of Secretary of State Herter alleging that 
Khrushchev was coming to America for propaganda purposes, and 
thai the Soviet proposal on the participation of the leading states- 
men in the discussion of the disarmament problem at the General 
Assembly is "absolutely absurd." What a strange sort of logic! 

Disarmament is the biggest problem which has for many years 
now baffled the representatives of different countries who have 
been vainly discussing it in various committees at different levels. 
Ami now when the Soviet Government submits a proposal to have 
i he leading statesmen participate in the discussion of this ques- 
tion at the General Assembly so as finally to break the deadlock 
mi this issue and find a solution for it, its proposal is called prop- 
Iganda. Yes, this indeed is a strange sort of logic! Those who are 
Working for the solution of the problem of general and complete 
disarmament fail to understand such logic. If certain statesmen 
i lei hue that Khrushchev has come to the General Assembly to 
I ngage in propaganda, there is nothing left for me but to be proud 
"I Mich a propaganda mission in favor of peace; and without spar- 
ing any effort, I shall engage in such propaganda until even the 
i Iim k-skulled are convinced of the need for reaching agreement on 
■ neral disarmament and thereby ensuring peace throughout the 
win Id. 

I do not know whether I understood correctly the recent deci- 
sion of the American Government on the participation of the 
I IS President, Mr. Eisenhower, in the work of the General Assem- 
bly. Perhaps the United States has now revised its attitude toward 
I h Assembly sessions and has also come to the conclusion that the 
I IN can seriously carry on negotiations for reaching a disarmament 
Agreement. Well, if it is not merely a fancy speech they mean 
Inn really constructive participation in the Assembly's work, we .such a decision. 

In conclusion I would like to express my great respect for the 

Vinci Iran nation and wish it success. I have the best feeling from 

tuy l.isi year's visit to the United States and my meetings with the 

American people. I still remember the good impressions I received 
from the talks with public figures, statesmen, representatives of 
American business circles and with plain Americans— workers, 
farmers and intellectuals, 

I'm sure that the relations between our great countries will 
improve. It is common knowledge that no matter how dark a night 
might be, it is invariably followed by dawn. That is why I'm sure 
that no matter how hard the evil forces try to make the atmosphere 
tense in the relations between our countries, they will certainly fail. 

Good times will come when there will be warm and friendly 
relations between our nations and our governments. It is in pur- 
suance of this aim, which will help to improve the relations among 
all the countries of the world, that the Soviet Union is prepared 
to continue to work insistently, honestly and purposefully. It is 
in the name of the consolidation of the cause of peace and solu- 
tion of complicated international problems that the Soviet delega- 
tion has come to the Fifteenth Session of the UN General Assembly 
in New York. Thank you for your attention. 

September 20, 1960 

Meeting with Fide! Castro 

Shortly after noon, Premier Khrushchev arrived at the Hotel 
Theresa, on 125th Street and Seventh Avenue in Harlem, to pay 
a visit to Premier Fidel Castro of Cuba. Khrushchev and Castro 
exchanged opinions on a number of basic international problems 
and on the forthcoming session of the UN General Assembly. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, Khrushchev spoke briefly 
to radio and newsmen on the sidewalk in front of the Soviet 
Mission to the United Nations. 

The Premier expressed his gratification at the meeting with 
Castro, and stated: 

"I considered it my duty to pay a visit to this heroic man, 
who raised the banner of struggle of the Cuban people for liberty 
and independence, the struggle of the poor against the rich, and 
ensured the victory of the working man. The Soviet people ardent- 
ly hail this victory and wish the greatest success to the people 
of Cuba and to their national leader, Fidel Castro." 


September 23, T960 

Disarmament, Colonialism, and Other 
International Problems 

Statement in the General Debate at the Fifteenth Session of the 
United Nations General Assembly 


It is my belief that everyone who comes to this rostrum and 
casts a glance at this hall is aware that he is addressing a very 
distinguished and responsible assembly. 

There is no more responsible gathering of representatives of 
.states than this one should be. Not for nothing is it called the 
General Assembly of the United Nations. There is no need for me 
to decipher the meaning of the name our organization bears. I 
would just like to stress two words out of several others: these are 
United Nations. Many nations are represented in this hall and they 
.should be united not just by the walls of this hall, but by the 
< ommon lofty interests of mankind. 

Today there are gathered here to discuss major international 
issues the representatives of now almost a hundred states. Soon we 
will have amongst us the delegates of new members of the United 
Nations Organization, and the walls of this hall will, as it were, 
recede and it will house an even greater number of lands and 
countries. We must, all of us, welcome this development because 
wv want truly all states to be represented in the United Nations. 

It is natural that our thoughts are now centered around what 
.imitates and alarms mankind. Perhaps it is precisely here that the 
world is seen in all its diversity and, of course, in all its contra- 
il id ions. It has fallen to our lot to live in the most turbulent but 
It the same time in the most wonderful time of man's development, 
,ni(l the men and women of the future will envy us. 

Much of what but very recently seemed to some to be im- 


mutable and eternal has crumbled because it has outlived its time. 
The new, more progressive, more equitable has established itself. 
Our epoch is one of the rapid emergence of new forms of the 
existence of human society, of an unprecedented upsurge to dom- 
ination over the forces of nature, o£ an unparalleled upsurge to 
a more progressive social order. But though we live in the twentieth 
century it still bears traces of past ages, and more than that, the 
remnants of barbarism. One of the chief features of this epoch 
and its very essence is, however, the awakening of the erstwhile 
backward, downtrodden, and oppressed peoples. 

Ours is the age of the struggle for freedom when the peoples 
are shaking the foreign yoke off their shoulders. The peoples want 
a worthy life and are fighting for it. 

The victory has been won already in many countries and in 
many lands. Can we relax, however? We know indeed, that tens 
of millions of people are still languishing in colonial bondage, 
and are experiencing cruel deprivations. 

This is taking place at a time known for its great and prom- 
ising scientific discoveries. The mind and the hands of man have 
created a space ship that circles the earth. Man is already capable 
of sending human beings far beyond our planet. We have split 
the atom and are penetrating the albumin cell. We are moving 
on land and above land with astonishing speed, and the vistas of 
our knowledge are so broad that we ourselves are surprised. 

It may seem that everything in our world is perfect. But at 
the same time who can say that this world of ours is already com- 
pletely and well arranged, that in it there is no poverty and 
deprivation. It is worthwhile pondering once again over the fact 
that, according to United Nations statistics, hundreds of millions 
of people on different continents are eking out a hungry and 
miserable existence. Our world is not free from the feeling of 
alarm for the future, it sees the danger inherent in the division 
into military groupings and in the ever growing race of nuclear 
armaments. The great achievements of man's genius can be used to 
the benefit or to the detriment of mankind. Such is the difficult 
choice that faces us. 

Every thinking individual will contemplate the question of 
what scientific progress is giving the people, what the great twenti- 
eth century is giving them. Some justly say that it has opened up 


before the world new horizons, limitless possibilities for creating 
an abundance of material benefits and for the comprehensive satis- 
faction of man's requirements. Others are no less justified in 
pointing to the tremendous danger in that the achievements of 
science and technology might serve not these noble goals but, in 
i he first instance, the manufacture of horrifying means of extermi- 
nation. These means of extermination are today inactive. But they 
arc after all manufactured in order to become active. 

This argument between the optimists and the pessimists re- 
llects our present-day reality. The main content of this reality is 
I he struggle between two tendencies, two lines in international 
relationships. Naturally, I am not touching upon the differences 
in the social systems since these are questions pertaining to the 
domestic life of the peoples and states, and can and must be re- 
solved by them alone. 

This dispute-filled and complicated line of international re- 
lationships came into being neither today, nor yesterday. Two 
points of view regarding world developments plainly opposed one 
another as early as in the first post-war years. One line aimed at 
an international detente, at ending the arms race, at the develop- 
ment of international cooperation, and the exclusion of war from 
(lie life of society. What a noble and wonderful line this is! It is, 
indeed, in the name of the triumph of justice that man lives on 
l lie earth. 

There is, however, a second line, and we have no right to 
pass over it in silence. This is a line aimed at fanning the "cold 
war." It leads to an unchecked build-up of armaments, to the 
destruction of all the foundations of international cooperation 
with all the ensuing dangerous consequences. 

Two lines in international relationships have been in contest 
for a long time. But if in elementary geometry parallel lines can 
never meet, in international affairs these lines may collide. And 
«his would be a fearful moment. Just ten or fifteen years ago hardly 
anyone could foresee the outcome of the struggle between these 
(wo lines in international policies. 

In 1960, however, a year in which you and I are living, only 
I he blind will not see the way in which the belief in the necessity 
* if preserving peace is ever more definitely and plainly taking root 
in the minds of the majority of nations. 


The peoples of all countries, the workers and peasants, the 
intellectuals, and a part of the bourgeoisie, except for a handful 
of militarists and monopolists, want not war but peace and peace 
alone. And if, therefore, the nations wage an active struggle in 
order to tie the hands of the militarist monopolist quarters, peace 
can be ensured. 

It cannot indeed be otherwise, for life cannot be squeezed 
into simple geometrical formulas, since life itself relies on the 
genuine power of the peaceable states, on the ardent sympathy 
and support of the overwhelming majority of mankind. 

It is precisely in the name of the victory of the cause of 
peace and tranquility, for the sake of service to the cause of 
peace and security of the nations that the United Nations was 
created, and we would like to hope that the decisions that will 
be elaborated by this session of the United Nations General As- 
sembly will bring us all closer to the achievement of the goal of 
all mankind— peace and justice. 

There exist no more lofty goals than those that face the 
United Nations. It can take extremely important decisions in the 
field of preventing the outbreak of a new war, safeguarding the 
legitimate rights and security of all the nations, it can promote 
the establishment of fruitful international cooperation. 

Evidence of how serious are the problems submitted for con- 
sideration by this session, evidence of how acute they have become 
is provided by the fact that a number of states are represented by 
statesmen holding leading positions in their countries. 

Esteemed delegates, we have embarked upon consideration of 
the problems that today agitate all the nations. The possibilities 
of the United Nations have now broadened, and the greater is the 
responsibility vested in it. I have already referred to the fact that 
the United Nations has been augmented by a large group of young 
independent African states. I am happy to have this opportunity 
to welcome ardently, sincerely and cordially the states recently 
granted United Nations membership, and to convey to them wishes 
of wellbeing and prosperity on behalf of the Soviet people. 

The road traversed by the representatives of these states was 
not easy. The peoples of these countries sustained oppression, de- 
privation, and sufferings. They have come to us after a stubborn 
struggle for their independence and freedom, and all the more 


cordially do we welcome them today. We say to them that they 
h;ive taken their legitimate and rightful seats as members of the 
United Nationsl 

The countries that have cast off the burden of colonialism 
are a huge and active peace force. From now on the young states 
of Africa and the Mediterranean will also make their outstanding 
<ontribution to the solution of the important and complicated 
problems, facing the United Nations. 

1. The Policy of Preparing War and Violating the Sover- 
eign Rights of the Notions Must Be Condemned and 

A year ago I already had the honour of speaking from this 
lofty rostrum. That was a time when highly promising prospects 
for the invigoration of the international atmosphere had opened 
ii]) before mankind. Contacts between responsible statesmen from 
various countries of the world were expanding. The General As- 
lembly adopted a resolution on general and complete disarmament. 
The Ten Nation Disarmament Committee began its work. Agree- 
ment was reached on a Summit Conference. Certain progress was 
made in the talks on the discontinuance of atomic and hydrogen 
weapons tests. All this instilled great hopes into the hearts of 
people in all countries. 

No one can dispute the fact that the Soviet Union has never 
ipared any effort to make international relations continue to 
develop further in this gratifying direction. However, the sinister 
forces who profit by maintaining international tension cling hard 
to their positions. These are a small handful of people, but they 
.iic fairly influential and greatly affect the policies of their states. 
No small effort should, therefore, be exerted to crush their resist- 
ance. Hardly does the policy of an international detente start to 
yield appreciable fruits when they immediately launch extreme 
measures so that the nations should not feel any relief, they go 
all out in order again and again to force the world back to dark 
limes, to aggravate international tension still further. 

We come up against a dangerous manifestation of the activi- 
ties of these forces last spring when the aircraft of one of the 


largest of the United Nations member states, namely the United 
States, perfidiously invaded the air space of the Soviet Union and 
other states. Moreover, the United States has promoted such viola- 
tion of international law into a principle of deliberately pursued 
state policy. 

The aggressive incursion o£ an American plane into our 
country and all the subsequent actions of the United States Gov- 
ernment have shown the nations that they are dealing with the 
calculated policy of the United States Government which attempted 
to supplant international law with piracy, and honest negotiations 
between sovereign equal states with perfidy. 

The whole world knows what a heavy blow this policy dealt 
to the cause of alleviating international tension. In particular, 
it was the cause of the breakdown of the Paris Summit Conference 
which was to have considered the paramount problems of today. 
Under different circumstances this conference could have laid the 
foundations for sounder cooperation among states. 

However, for some convinced lovers of what does not belong 
to them the lessons they are taught are of no avail. They are given 
a sound thrashing, but they think that all their setbacks are due 
to their carelessness or to the use of inadequate facilities. And 
then again they try to break into another man's house, but from 
another entrance this time, and using new devices. 

Something of the sort is happening with the initiators of 
spy flights of American aircraft. I don't know what lessons they 
drew from the U-2 incident, but exactly two months later, on July 
1, they dispatched to us another military aircraft, an RB-47. This 
plane carried guns and special reconnaissance equipment. The 
plane penetrated our country from the direction of the Kola 
Peninsula. For what purposes? In the name of what? 

I believe every person of common sense understands that this 
plane was not bringing us any good cargo. 

Incidentally, the President of the United States, Mr. Eisen- 
hower, mentioned in his speech yesterday that an RB-47 American 
military aircraft was shot down by Soviet forces. I am not going 
to argue about this matter. The actual state of affairs and our 
position have already been explained in detail. 

But, strange as it may seem, while closely following the 
President's speech I did not hear him say a single word about the 


U-2 plane which was also downed over the territory of the Soviet 
Union. How can this be explained? Perhaps the President has 
forgotten about this plane? 

What then is the United States trying to do, in fact, by send- 
ing its planes into the air space of the USSR? Does it perhaps want 
to cause an incident which would be followed by rocket talk? 
One plane, another plane, and, in actual fact, an incident of this 
sort is staged. Or is this perhaps for the time being only a policy 
of probing the strength of the other side? 

Be this as it may, but one thing is absolutely plain: the provo- 
cation-mongers are seeking to create an atmosphere in which the 
nations would live in constant fear. If such an atmosphere satisfies 
the United States Government it can in no way satisfy the Soviet 
Union and the overwhelming majority of other states. We have 
always striven and will strive for the ending of lawlessness in 
international relations in all its manifestations! 

The Soviet Union is not tendering any demands that are out 
of the ordinary. We are merely striving for the observance of the 
most elementary standards of intercourse between states. We merely 
want the strict observance of the United Nations Charter which 
excludes methods of violence, brigandry, or aggression, and de- 
mands respect for the sovereign rights of all states as the basis of 
stable peace on earth. Is this so very much? And is this not desired 
by all honest people on earth who hold dear the destinies of peace, 
the sovereignty and independence of their countries? 

The allies of the United States sometimes rebuke us for 
criticizing the American government too severely. But to feign 
kindness, and condescendingly slap the backs of the sponsors of 
international provocations would mean rendering a disservice to 
the cause of peace. To fight for peace means to courageously expose 
any actions which cause a war danger, whatever be their source. 
This invigorates the international atmosphere very well. Con- 
nivance with the provocation-mongers, lenience to them have been 
shown by experience ultimately to lead to the outbreak of war. 
History is familiar with not a few such examples which are un- 
fortunate for the destinies of the nations. 

The flights of American spy planes are instructive in another 
respect too. They have demonstrated particularly graphically the 
danger for peace that is constituted by the web of American raili- 


tary bases which has enmeshed dozens of states in Europe, Asia, 
Africa, and Latin America. 

Like a deep source of dangerous infection in an organism 
these bases destroy the normal political and economic life of 
states upon which they have been imposed. They block the estab- 
lishment of normal relations between these states and neighboring 
countries. Indeed, what kind of normal relations can there be if 
the people in these neighboring countries cannot sleep in peace, 
if they are constantly overshadowed by the threat of being sub- 
jected to an exterminating blow whenever the American military 
take it into their heads to launch new provocations. 

The United Nations cannot fail to heed the ever more insist- 
ent demands of the peoples who are alarmed by the sallies of the 
enemies of peace. The forms and results of the popular movement 
for peace and international cooperation in various countries are 
different, but its meaning, causes and aims are the same: it is a 
movement of protest against the policy of war and provocations, 
against the back-breaking arms race, against the foisting upon 
the nations of a will that is alien and inimical to them. 

There are fewer and fewer people willing to reconcile them- 
selves with the present situation when any manifestation of the 
free will of the peoples, any trends towards the pursuit of an 
independent policy— whether on the part of Indonesia, Iraq, or 
Guinea, neutral Austria, or little Iceland which is protecting her 
economic interests— meet with frantic opposition and evoke thun- 
der and lightning on the part of the powers grouping around 
NATO, this present-day "holy alliance" of sorts which has assumed 
the thankless mission of exorcising the spirit of freedom wherever 
it appears on the globe. 

Courageous Cuba has become the object of all kinds of at- 
tacks, intrigues, and subversion, economic aggression and finally, 
poorly concealed threats of intervention. 

The relations of the United States with Cuba are illustrative. 
All the branches of Cuba's economy before the victory of the 
popular revolution in that country are known to have been dom- 
inated completely by American monopolies which gained huge 
profits out of the exploitation of the Cuba a workers and the 
wealth of their fertile land. 

Some people in the United States at times like to boast that 


the living standards in their country are higher than those of 
other countries. There is no doubt about it, the living standards 
in the United States today are higher than in Cuba. But what 
Es the explanation for this? Is it because the Cuban people are 
less industrious or because the Cuban soil is less fertile? No, this 
Is certainly not the reason. The diligence of the Cuban people 
and their love for their homeland and their soil are well known. 
The reason is quite different. For years the fruits of the Cuban 
people's labour were used not by themselves but by the American 
monopolies. After this can anyone be surprised at the fact that 
(lie per capita income in Cuba was in 1958, for instance, six and 
.1 half times less than it was in the United States? This speaks for 
Itself eloquently. 

Now a different order has come into existence in Cuba. 
Having expelled dictator Batista the Cuban people have freed 
ihcmselves from foreign exploitation, and have taken their fate 
inio their own hands firmly declaring to the United States mono- 
I '"lists: "No more plundering of our country. We ourselves shall 
utilize the wealth of our labour and our landl" 

Thus, Cuba's purported guilt consists in that the freedom- 
loving and brave Cuban people wanted to live an independent life. 
The United Nations must do all it can to remove from Cuba the 
overhanging threat of interference from outside. To allow matters 
to he brought to a new Guatemala would mean to give free rein 
<<• events whose consequences hardly anyone can now foresee. 

Stormy developments have flared up on the African continent. 
The young Republic of the Congo on the third day after the 
proclamation of her independence fell victim to aggression. Before 
the eyes of the whole world the Belgian Government attempted to 
deprive that country of its freedom, to take back what the Con- 
golese people have been selflessly fighting for over decades. An 
International crisis developed which brought back to everyone's 
memory the troubled days of autumn 1956; the days of the Suez 
< i isis. As was the case then, an independent African state fell vic- 
tim to unprovoked aggression, the universally recognized principles 
dI" relations among states were flouted, a situation w r as created 
which is fraught with a grave threat to peace not only in Africa. 

How ridiculous and absurd are the arguments with which 
the aggressors have been covering up their actions. They alleged 


that "chaos" would reign in the Congo if the Belgian troops had 
not marched in, that the Congolese people had not yet matured 
for independent nationhood. Who could believe these allegations? 
The Africans have a saying which runs: "To cheat the people is 
just the same as to try to wrap fire in paper." Armed aggression 
against the Congo has been condemned by the whole of Africa, 
by world-wide public opinion. 

And of course, it was not concern for the life of Belgian 
citizens in the Congo but the far more tangible interests of the 
all-powerful monopolies which have taken root on Congolese land 
that prompted the Belgian Government to undertake the reckless 
attempt to bring the people of this young state to their knees, to 
tear away by force its richest province of Katanga. Raw materials 
for nuclear weapons— uranium, cobalt, titanium, cheap labour— that 
is what the monopolists are afraid of losing in the Congo. This 
is what constitutes the genuine basis of their conspiracy against 
the Congo the strings of which extend from Brussels to the capi- 
tals of other major NATO powers. 

When the colonialists realized that the government of the 
Republic of the Congo which was legally elected and enjoyed the 
confidence of the Parliament had embarked upon the path of a 
firm independent policy, and set itself the task of working for the 
interests of the Congolese people, every means was employed by 
the colonialists to bring down this government. The colonialists 
decided to get a puppet government created which, posing as an 
"independent" government, would; in fact, be obedient to the will 
of the colonizers. 

The colonialists tried to bring this about by crude methods 
and direct interference, as they always do in such cases. Unfor- 
tunately, in the case of the Congo they have teen doing this 
unseemly work through the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. 
Hammarskjold and his staff. 

This is shameful. The United Nations forces which were sent 
at the request of the legal government to help that government 
have taken over the airports and the radio station, disorganized 
the life of the state and paralyzed the activities of the legitimate 
government. The UN troops created conditions for the treacherous 
acts of the Katanga puppet where forces were rallied and mobi- 


lized against the government of Patrice Lumumba which was elect- 
ed in conformity with all the rules of democratic procedure. 

The colonialists and their servitors say that Lumumba is a 
communist. Lumumba is certainly no communist but he is a patriot 
of his country and honestly serves his own people in their struggle 
for liberation from the colonial yoke. 

But you, Messrs. colonialists, by your actions are helping the 
peoples of the colonial countries to eliminate the screen by which 
you blind the people, obscure their consciousness, spreading vari- 
ous versions about communists. All the peoples will understand— 
and they will understand it soon— that communists, that a com- 
munist party, is a party which really expresses the will of the 
peoples in their struggle for freedom and independence. 

Some organs of the US and British press, encouraged by cer- 
tain forces, clamour about an alleged Soviet defeat in the Congo. 

What can one say of such unwise allegations? First of all, we 
did not and could not sustain any defeat in the Congo because 
(here neither were nor could there have been any troops of ours 
or any interference on our part in the internal affairs of the Congo. 

It has been and will always be our stand that the peoples 
of Africa, like those of other continents, striving for their libera- 
tion from the colonial yoke, should establish orders in their coun- 
tries of their own will and choice. 

Secondly, we have always opposed and will oppose any inter- 
ference by imperialists in the internal affairs of the countries 
liberating themselves from colonial dependence, as well as such 
unworthy methods as were used in the Congo, 

The colonialists seek to dissolve the legitimate government 
and Parliament with the help of the countries which call them- 
selves the free world, they want to celebrate their victory. But it is 
as yet too early for them to rejoice for it is a Pyrrhic victory. By 
their pseu do- victory the colonialists are helping to remove the 
scales from the eyes of the colonial peoples who see more and 
more clearly that, while granting independence in form, the 
colonialists do their utmost to maintain colonial oppression. 

The people will not stop half way. They will gird their forces 
and act with still greater foresight realizing that the struggle for 
independence is a hard one, that it is necessary to overcome many 


difficulties on the way to freedom, to learn to distinguish true 
friends from enemies. 

The struggle started by the Congolese people cannot be 
stopped. It can be slowed down and hampered. But it is with 
all the greater force that this struggle will break out and then 
the people, having overcome all difficulties, will gain full freedom. 

The Soviet government has welcomed and is welcoming now 
the struggle of the colonial peoples for independence and will do 
its utmost to render moral support and material assistance to the 
colonial peoples in their just struggle. 

The United Nations should demand the re-establishment of 
order in the Congo so that the Parliament legally elected by the 
Congolese people can function, so that conditions be created for 
the normal activities of the legitimate government of the Congo 
which is headed by Mr. Lumumba and which has and is enjoying 
the confidence of the Congolese people. 

The Soviet Government has placed the Congo question on the 
agenda of the fifteenth session of the General Assembly. The 
Assembly should give a rebuff to the colonialists and their stooges 
and call Mr, Hammarskjold to order so that he should not abuse 
his position as Secretary General and should discharge his duties 
in strict conformity with the provisions of the United Nations 
Charter and the decisions of the Security Council. 

It is the opinion of the Soviet Government that a decision 
should be taken that only the troops of the countries of Africa 
and Asia should be left in the Congo, those troops remaining there 
only with the consent of the legally elected Congolese government 
of Mr. Lumumba and being used only at the discretion of this 
government in the interests of ensuring the normal functioning 
of the legitimate government and Parliament of the Congo Re- 

All states which in deeds and not in words want to see the 
Congo free and independent should refrain from any action which 
could lead to an infringement of the territorial integrity and 
independence of the Republic of the Congo. 

We are convinced that the Congolese people themselves will 
cope with the present difficulties and will .-succeed in establish- 
ing order in their country. 

We are all witnesses of the fact that many nations are expe- 


riencing unceasing hostile acts, brutal pressure on the part of a 
certain group of states which seek to ignore the legitimate interests 
and rights of other countries. This fills the international atmos- 
phere with acute conflicts the danger of which is enhanced by 
the mounting arms race. 

It is quite evident that international relations cannot con- 
tinue to develop on this basis since this would mean sliding 
headlong towards a precipice. It is the sacred duty of the United 
Nations to come out in defense of the sovereign rights of states, 
for the restoration of a firm legal basis in international relations, 
and for the halting of the arms race. 

Unfortunately, the policy of violating the integral rights of 
the peoples is still to be felt in the United Nations itself. Just 
take the question of the representation in the United Nations of 
the great People's China. To block the restoration of the legiti- 
mate rights of the People's Republic of China in the United 
Nations only because the socialist order in that country is not to 
the liking of the ruling quarters of certain Western countries, and, 
first and foremost, the United States, means to ignore reality, not 
to desire an easing of international tension and to sacrifice the 
interests of consolidating international peace and the development 
of international cooperation for the sake of the narrow political 
designs of a small group of states. Such a situation is harmful 
for the cause of peace and humiliating for the United Nations. 

This is also attested to by the history of the question of the 
admission of the Mongolian People's Republic to United Nations' 
membership. As you know, this question has been discussed time 
and again for many years. The Mongolian People's Republic, 
however, up to now has not been admitted to the United Nations. 
We believe that it is high time to settle this question and admit 
the Mongolian People's Republic to the United Nations so that 
it can participate on an equal footing with the other sovereign 
states in the discussion and solution of vital international problems. 

By its very nature and by its destiny the United Nations 
should have the status of a universal world organization. The 
existence of the United Nations would lose sense if it were to 
become a one-sided organization and were to lower itself to the 
position of an errand boy of this or that military alignment. 


II. The Colonial Regime Must Be Completely and Finally 

Fellow delegates: 

The process taking place for all to see of the emancipation 
and regeneration to independent life of nations which for ages 
were kept away by the colonialists from the highroad of mankind's 
development is a great hallmark of our epoch. In fifteen years 
alone about one and a half billion people, in other words, half the 
world's population, cast off the shackles of the colonial yoke. 
Dozens of new national states emerged from the ruins of the old 
colonial empires. 

A new period has started in the history of mankind when the 
nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America are beginning to take 
an active part in the determination of the destinies of the whole 
world together with the nations of Europe and North America, 
Without recognition of this immutable fact there can be no re- 
alistic foreign policy, no policy marching in step with the demands 
of the times and conforming to the peace-loving aspirations of 
the peoples. 

Is the solution of major international problems conceivable 
today without the participation of the People's Republic of China? 
Can these problems be resolved without the participation of India, 
Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon, the United Arab Republic, Iraq, Gha- 
na, Guinea and other states? Let anyone who thinks otherwise 
try here, within the United Nations, to ignore the opinion and 
the votes of the representatives of the states of Asia, Africa, and 
Latin America. True, in some Western countries the appearance 
in the United Nations of new Asian and African states causes fear. 

More than that, opinions have begun to circulate on ways to 
limit the further flow of newly emerging states into the United 

As for the Soviet Union, I shall say frankly that we are quite 
content with the admission of so many new states to the United 
Nations. We have always opposed and will continue to oppose 
any curtailment of the rights of nations that have won national 
independence. We are at one with these states in our common 
desire to preserve and strengthen peace, to create on our planet 
conditions for peaceful coexistence and cooperation between coun- 


iries irrespective of their state and social systems, as is required 
by the peaceable principles proclaimed by the Bandung Con- 
ference of Asian and African countries. Facts testify that the 
I i Iteration of nations and peoples that had been under colonial 
domination leads to the invigoration of international relations, to 
the expansion of international cooperation, to the consolidation 
of universal peace. 

The peoples of the new states have shown convincingly that 
(hey are not only able to get by without control and tutelage on 
(he part of the colonial powers, and can govern themselves but 
that they are active creators of a new life and incomparably wiser 
;idminis trators and more careful masters of their property, of the 
wealth of their country than the colonial authorities. 

Early this year I visited India, Indonesia, Burma and Afghan- 
istan. I must say that I was much impressed by the great success 
in raising the level of the national economy and culture. In those 
countries we saw large new building projects, dams and roads 
under construction, the buildings of new universities and institutes. 

Can such a picture be seen in the colonies? Such things do not 
and cannot exist there. There the complete arbitrary rule of the 
foreigners reigns supreme. Peoples of the colonial countries have 
not only been deprived of the right to independence and self- 
government, but their national and human feelings and dignity 
are insulted and flouted at every step. The foreign monopolies 
pump out of the colonies all that is of value, they barbarically 
plunder the wealth by means of merciless exploitation. 

Due to the rule of colonialists the economy of the colonies 
is extremely backward in its development while the working popu- 
lation leads a miserable existence. It is precisely in the colonies 
that the longest working day is to be found and at the same time 
the lowest national income, the lowest wages, the highest per- 
centage of illiteracy, the lowest life span and the highest mor- 
tality rate. 

There is no need here to describe in detail the impoverished 
state of over 100,000,000 human beings deprived of their rights 
who are still languishing under colonial bondage. The archives 
of the United Nations contain more than enough reports of vari- 
ous United Nations commissions, petitions and complaints which 
characterize the condition of the population of those countries 


and territories where the colonial regime of government is still 
preserved under various names. These documents are an indictment 
of the ignominious system of colonialism. What is happening in 
those countries and regions justly evokes profound indignation 
and revulsion among all honest people on earth. But even in the 
remaining colonies the time of the serene rule of the foreign 
oppressors has passed. Though the order in the colonies remains 
as heretofore the people there are becoming different. They are 
becoming ever more conscious of their condition and are resolutely 
refusing to bear the colonial yoke. And when the peoples rise up 
to struggle for their freedom, for a better life, no force in the 
world can stop this mighty movement. 

Look what is happening in the colonies today. Africa is 
boiling and swirling like a volcano. The Algerian people have 
been waging a heroic selfless struggle for national independence 
for about six years. Ever greater resolve is being manifested in the 
struggle for their rights by the peoples of Kenya, Tanganyika, 
Uganda, Ruanda-Urundi, Angola, Mozambique, Northern Rho- 
desia, Southern Rhodesia, Sierra Leone, South West Africa, Zan- 
zibar, as well as West Irian, Puerto Rico, and many other colonies. 

It should be clear to all that the struggle of the peoples for 
their liberation cannot be checked by any means or force, because 
this is a great historic process which is going on with ever grow- 
ing irreversible force. The domination of this or that state over 
another can be prolonged by a year or two but, just as in the 
past the bourgeois system came to replace feudalism, and just as 
today the socialist system is replacing capitalism, the slavery of 
colonialism will yield to freedom. Such are the laws of human 
development and only adventurers can expect that mountains of 
corpses and millions of victims would stop the arrival of a radiant 

Colonialism should be done away with for it brings misfor- 
tunes and suffering not only to the peoples of enslaved countries. 
Misfortunes and suffering, tears and privation also fall upon the 
shoulders of the peoples of the home countries. Who can say that 
French mothers whose children are dying in the fields of Algeria 
are less unfortunate than the Algerian motjfcrs who bury their 
sons in their own land. 

Now when the blood of colonial peoples is being shed one 

cannot turn away or close one's eyes to this bloodshed, and pre- 
tend that peace reigns supreme. What kind of peace is this when 
savage wars are raging, wars which at that are unequal from the 
point of view of the conditions the combatants find themselves in. 
The troops of the colonial powers are armed to the teeth with all 
modern means of killing people, while the peoples selflessly fight- 
ing for their liberation are armed with obsolete primitive weapons. 
But whatever wars of extermination the colonialists should wage 
the peoples fighting for their liberation will be victorious. 

There are countries where sympathies toward the struggle of 
oppressed peoples are great but they are rather afraid to spoil 
their relations with colonial powers and therefore do not raise 
their voice against wars of extermination and put up with colo- 
nialism. Others are themselves colonialists and there is nothing to 
be expected from them. The colonialist policy with all its atrocities 
is supported by the allies of the colonial powers in aggressive 
military blocs. 

The overwhelming majority of mankind has long since ar- 
rived at its final verdict regarding the colonial regime. 

The Soviet Union faithful to the policy of peace and support 
to the struggle of oppressed peoples for their national indepen- 
dence which was proclaimed by V. I. Lenin, the founder of the 
Soviet state, is urging the United Nations to raise its voice in 
defense of the just cause of liberating the colonies, and to under- 
take prompt action towards the complete elimination of the co- 
lonial regime of administration. 

Complete and final elimination of the colonial regime in all 
its forms and manifestations has been prompted by the entire 
course of world history in the last decades. This regime is doomed 
and its death is a matter of time. Practically the question now is 
whether the burial of the colonial regime will be quiet or whether 
it will be accompanied by dangerous gambles by the supporters 
of colonialism who clutch at extreme measures. The events in 
the Congo are a fresh reminder of existing dangers. 

The United Nations called upon to serve the strengthening 
of peace and security of nations is duty bound to do its utmost 
in order not to allow new flareups of military conflicts in Asia, 
Africa and Latin America arising out of the clash between the 
colonial powers and the peoples fighting for their freedom and 


independence. Is it necessary to prove that any great power can 
be involved in the orbit of such a conflict and then inevitably 
the war, local at first, will grow into a general war, a world war? 

It is not enough merely to be on the defensive against the 
intrigues of the colonialists surviving one international crisis after 
another. It is necessary to firmly safeguard mankind against these 
intrigues, to make the world secure from colonial military adven- 
tures. It is necessary to do away with colonialism once and for 
all, and to throw it into the rubbish heap of history. 

Who else but the United Nations should take a stand in 
favour of the elimination of the colonial regime of administration 
since, according to the Charter, the duty of the United Nations is 
to affirm faith in the rights of man, in the dignity and value of 
the human being, in the equality of rights of nations, big and 
small. How can one develop friendly relations between nations 
on the basis of respecting the principle of equality and self- 
determination of nations which is the aim of the United Nations 
and at the same time reconcile oneself to a situation where, 
as a result of the predatory policy of powers strong militarily and 
economically many a nation of Asia and Africa can win the right 
to determine its own fate only at the price of tremendous suf- 
ferings and sacrifices, only by armed struggle against oppressors. 
How can one "achieve international cooperation in solving inter- 
national problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humani- 
tarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for 
human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without dis- 
tinction as to race, sex, language, or religion"— you will probably 
have noticed that I was quoting Article I, paragraph 3 of the 
aims and objects of the UN Charter,— and at the same time shut 
one's eyes upon such a shameful phenomenon of present-day 
human society as is the colonial regime. 

Is it not time to mount the final offensive against colonialism 
as a century or more ago civilized mankind launched an of- 
fensive against the slave trade and slave-driving, and buried them, 
thus opening up ample scope not only for the political but also for 
the economic development of society. 

The Soviet Government believes that the time has come to 
raise the question of the complete and final elimination of the 


colonial regime of administration in all its forms and shapes so 
as to do away with this shame, this barbarism and savagery. 

When I was preparing my statement, I knew that not all the 
participants of the General Assembly would welcome the Soviet 
Union's proposals, because along with the representatives of the 
free and independent states there are sitting here representatives 
of colonial powers as well. And they are hardly likely to welcome 
our freedom-loving proposals. 

Firmly adhering to the principle that the United Nations is 
the centre for coordinating the actions of nations in achieving the 
universal aims proclaimed in its Charter the Soviet Government 
submits for consideration by this session of the General Assembly 
a draft Declaration in which the following demands are solemnly 

1. To grant immediately to all colonial countries, trusteeship 
territories and other non-self-governing territories complete inde- 
pendence and freedom in the building up of their own national 
states in conformity with the freely expressed will and desire of 
their peoples. The colonial regime, colonial administration in all 
its forms should be abolished completely so as to make it possible 
for the peoples of such territories to determine their destiny and 
form of government. 

2. To eliminate likewise all strongholds of colonialism in the 
shape of possessions and leasehold areas on the territories of other 

3. The governments of all countries are called upon to ob- 
serve strictly and consistently the provisions of the United Nations 
Charter and of this Declaration relating to equality and respect 
for sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all states without 
exception allowing no manifestations of colonialism, no exclusive 
rights or advantages for some states to the prejudice of other states. 

Being convinced that the complete elimination of the re- 
gime of colonial administration will be a noble act of genuine 
humaneness, a great stride forward on the way of civilization and 
progress we ardently urge all governments represented in the 
United Nations to support the provisions of this Declaration. 

The draft Declaration prepared by the Soviet Government 
and submitted for your attention outlines in detail the considera- 
tions by which we were guided in raising this question at the 


General Assembly. We request that this draft Declaration be cir- 
culated as an official document of the UN General Assembly. 

In this statement made in the general debate I should also 
like to make the following points. 

The adoption by the United Nations of measures for the 
complete elimination of the colonial regime would not only create 
favorable conditions for localizing and cooling the existing caul- 
drons of military danger where an armed struggle between the 
colonialists and the peoples fighting for their independence is 
being waged, but would also greatly diminish the possibility of new 
military conflicts between states in these areas of the world. The 
peoples of the countries who are now suffering from humiliations 
brought about by foreign domination would gain a clear prospect 
of peaceful liberation from the foreign yoke, and the states cling- 
ing to their colonial possessions would be held responsible to the 
United Nations, to world public opinion for the implementa- 
tion of the provisions of the proposed Declaration. Of course, such 
a prospect will become reality only in the event that the colonial 
powers do not evade the implementation of the UN decisions. 

No one may forget what great changes the elimination of the 
colonial regime would institute in the life of the peoples of the 
enslaved countries. This would be not only a triumph of ele- 
mentary human fairness and international law which the United 
Nations must strive for not in words but in deeds, but would also 
unite nations, backward as a result of age-long oppression, with 
the benefits of modern science, technology, culture and social prog- 

It is difficult to overestimate the tremendous importance of the 
elimination of the colonial regime for the entire world economy. 
It is common knowledge that the economy of colonies and trustee- 
ship territories is today subordinated to the vested interests of 
foreign monopolies, while the industrialization of these countries 
has been artificially held in check. Imagine that the situation has 
changed and these countries and territories, having become inde- 
pendent, obtain the possibility of extensive utilization of their 
rich natural resources, of industrialization, while their populations 
lead a better life. This would result in a colossal growth of the 
world market's capacity which would undoubtedly exercise a favour- 
able influence not only on the economic development of the coun- 


tries of the East but on the economy of industrially developed 
Western countries as well. 

A positive role in overcoming the age-old backwardness of the 
countries that are being liberated would be played by economic 
and technical assistance under the auspices of the United. Nations 
and on a bilateral basis. Of course, this will require considerable 
funds. Where can they be obtained without overburdening the 
population of industrially developed countries? Once again from 
this rostrum I draw your attention to such a source as disarmament. 

The allocation of only one tenth of the funds which the great 
powers are spending for military purposes would increase the 
amount of assistance to underdeveloped countries by ten billion 
dollars a year. And the whole integrated construction of one of 
the world's largest power systems in the Ingui area of the Congo 
which is capable of making a tremendous area in Africa blossom 
is estimated at five billion dollars. 

It is also pertinent to recall that it is the moral duty of states 
that possessed colonies in the past to return to the liberated peoples 
of those countries at least a part of the values taken by them 
through cruel exploitation of the population and through pillage 
of the natural resources. 

It could be said that it is easy for the Soviet Union to speak 
for the elimination of the colonial regime since the Soviet Union 
has no colonies. Yes, this is so. We have neither colonies nor capi- 
tal in other countries. But there was a time when many nationali- 
ties that populate our country experienced the heavy oppression 
of tsarism, of the landlord bourgeois system. The conditions of 
remote areas of the tsarist empire hardly differed from those 
colonies because they were severely exploited by autocracy, by 
capitalism. If autocracy looked upon the peoples of Central Asia, 
Trans-Caucasia and other nationalities that lived in the Russian 
empire as upon a source of profit, after the October revolution 
when these peoples obtained complete freedom they promptly 
raised their economy, culture and wellbeing. 

Let us take, for instance, the Soviet Republics of Central Asia. 
Now Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, Turkmenia, Tadjikistan 
—all the sister republics of Central Asia have turned from back- 
ward colonies of tsarist Russia into advanced industrially developed 
socialist republics. During the period from 1913 to 1960 the out- 


put of major industries increased by over 60 times. The industrial 
production per capita of Kazakhstan, a backward land in the past, 
equals that of Italy and its per capita power output is higher than 
in Italy and is at the same level as in Japan. 

Before the revolution only 7 million kilowatt-hours of elec- 
tricity was produced in the territory of Central Asia and Kazakh- 
stan which is 300 times less than in the whole of the Russian em- 
pire, while today the annual output of power is 19 billion kilowatt 
hours, that is 9 times more than in the entire pre-revolutionary 

The peoples of the Soviet Union are engaged in peaceful 
creative labor for the successful implementation of the targets of 
the seven year plan for the development of the USSR national 
economy for 1959-1965. As a result of the realization of this plan 
the total industrial output in the USSR will increase during the 
seven year period approximately twofold. The power output in 
the country will increase more than twofold and in Central Asia 
almost threefold. 

Already today the Central Asian republics' power output per 
capita is about 800 kilowatt-hours a year, i.e. considerably more 
than in any Latin American republic. The Soviet Central Asian 
republics and Kazakhstan produce many times more power than 
such neighbouring states as, for example, Turkey, which generates 
95 kilowatt-hours per capita, Iran-36 kilowatt-hours, Pakistan-Il 

The economy and culture of other relatively small nationalities 
of the Soviet Union, united in autonomous republics, have im- 
measurably grown. Thus, for example, the output of the major 
industries of the Yakut ASSR during the period of 1913-1959 in- 
creased by 53 times, the Komy ASSR-by 109 times, the Tatar 
ASSR-by 147 times, the Bashkir ASSR-by 163 times. 

In the family of equal socialist republics the former border 
lands of pre-revolutionary Russia which were threatened with ex- 
tinction from malnutrition and diseases turned into flourishing 
land where the living standards have grown in the same way as 
in the whole of the Soviet Union. Wages and salaries of workers 
and employees there do not differ in amou%t from those in other 
republics of the Soviet Union. Along with all the citizens of the 


USSR they are provided with pensions, sick pay and other social* 

Still more striking is the success of the Soviet Union's national 
republics in the development of culture. It is known, for instance, 
that before the revolution the nationalities of Kazakhstan and the 
Central Asian republics were almost entirely illiterate. There were 
almost no people with secondary and higher education. Soviet 
power has opened for all peoples broad access to education and 
culture. Illiteracy of the population of Kazakhstan and the Central 
Asian republics as well as illiteracy of the population of the other 
republics of the USSR is now done away with and they, like the 
whole of the USSR, have become republics of overall literacy. 
Before the revolution in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, 
Tadjikistan and Turkmenistan there were no institutions of higher 
learning— and in Kirghizia, Tadjikistan and Turkmenistan even no 
technical schools— whereas last year 211 thousand students studied 
in those republics in the institutions of higher learning and 176 
thousand students in the technical schools and other secondary 
specialized institutions. For every ten thousand citizens of these 
republics there are on the average 88 students of institutions of 
higher learning and 73 students of technical schools not counting 
large numbers of young people who went to study beyond the 
borders of their republics-to Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Kharkov, 
Saratov, Novosibirsk, Tomsk and other centres of culture. I would 
recall that in France there are only 40 students in institutions of 
higher learning for every ten thousand citizens, in Italy-34, and 
in West Germany 31, that is, almost three times less than in Soviet 
Central Asia. 

One of the decisive factors guaranteeing the successful develop- 
ment of the economy and culture of the national republics is the 
growth of skilled cadres of workers and intellectuals. 

May I cite here a few figures taken from the results of the 
latest census and compare them with those of the census of 1926, 
the year when our economy was already completing its return to 
the pre-revolutionary level. During this period the total number 
of workers and employees in the national economy increased six- 
fold in the Soviet Union and tenfold in Central Asia and Kazakh- 

Still more considerable was the increase of skilled workers 


and specialists. Here, for example, are the figures for some profes- 
sions (in thousands of people): 

Me tal workers Th e wh ole of 

the USSR 
Central Asia 

Chemical workers The whole of 
the USSR 
Central Asia 


The whole of 

the USSR 
Central Asia 

Drivers, tractor The whole of 
and combine the USSR 

operators Central Asia 

Engineers, techni- The whole of 
cians and agrono the USSR 
mists Central Asia 

Teachers and The whole of 

other workers of the USSR 

culture and Central Asia 

Doctors and skilled The whole of 
medical personnel the USSR 
Central Asia 

Scientific workers 

The whole of 

the USSR 
Central Asia 














1QKQ Times fay which numbers 
9304 9 




















Tremendous success in the development of economy, culture 
and science was achieved, of course, not only in the republics of 
Central Asia which were particularly backward in the pre-revolu- 
tionary period, but in all other Soviet republics as well. Thus, 
for example, in all the Union Republics academies of science 
have been established and there exist a great number of scientific 
research institutes and institutions of higher learning. In all re- 
publics in the years of the Soviet rule qualified cadres of the work- 
ing class have been trained and the numbers of intellectuals greatly 

After the Great October Socialist Revolution the bourgeoisie 
of the whole world kept harping about the inevitable end of 
the power of the Soviets because Russia was a country of poor 
education and the working class had no specialists capable of 
running the state machinery and the country's economy. Life has 


I > roved the truth of Lenin's words that the revolution would awaken 
popular initiative and that Soviet power would produce leaders 
.11 id organizers from amidst the masses and that the common worker 
and peasant having taken power would learn to govern the state, 
would master all achievements of modern science and technology. 

The tsarist government pursued in the border lands of Russia 
.in essentially colonial policy which differed but little from what 
can be seen today in colonial countries. Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tadjiks 
and other nationalities were scornfully called "aliens." They were 
not considered as human beings and were severely exploited. Na- 
tional differences, hatred and discord were stirred up between 
these nationalities, and the tsarist empire was held together only 
I >y bayonets and subjugation. When the peoples of Central Asia 
and Trans-Caucasia were given national freedom and equal rights 
with other nationalities of Russia they showed their capabilities 
in the development of national economy and culture. 

Did the development of our country suffer from the granting 
of the right to independence and self-determination to the peoples? 
Are there strife and enmity in our multinational country between 
nationalities or disintegration of the state? No, such is not the 
case. There neither is nor can be anything of the sort. 

According to the Constitution each of our 15 Union Repub- 
lics has the right to remain in the Union or leave it if it so 
desires. The existence of 19 autonomous republics, 9 autonomous 
regions and 10 national territories makes it possible to preserve 
tin' national features and cultural originality of each people and 

Accord and an unprecedented cohesion of all nationalities 

I I ive been achieved in the Soviet Union. Genuine friendship be- 
tween nationalities was brought into being which all the trials of 
the second world war could not shake. It was not only the national 
minorities who gained from these great changes but also the Rus- 
M.ins, Ukrainians, and Bielorussians— the nations comprising the 
majority of the Soviet Union's population. 

We are proud that on the experience of the former border 
l,i mis of Russia it has been completely proved that it is possible 
in! the countries of the East to do away with backwardness, 
poverty, diseases, and ignorance within the life-time of one genera- 
tion and to rise to the level of economically advanced countries. 


And now may I turn to other factual examples which illus- 
trate how the colonialists exercise their "civilizing mission" in the 

Upon the attainment of independence by the former colonies 
the national annual per capita income according to official UN 
statistics was in Indonesia only 25 US dollars, while in Holland 
it was 20 times higher. In Burma this income was 36 dollars, in 
India-57, that is, ten times less than in Great Britain. The national 
per capita income in Belgium at the time the Congolese people 
won their independence was 13 times higher than the income 
of a Congolese. And, at that, in the Congo, as well as in other 
colonial countries, the lion's share of this extremely low income 
was taken by the colonialists. 

Let us take such an important index of a country's economic 
development as the output of power. At the attainment of inde- 
pendence the output of power in Burma was 4 kilowatt-hours per 
capita a year, in India-about 15 kilowatt-hours, in Pakistan-2 
kilowatt-hours, in Egypt-about 50 kilowatt-hours while in Great 
Britain in 1947 the per capita output was over 1100 kilowatt-hours. 

The colonialists kept the enslaved nations in ignorance and 
darkness. In 1950 the number of literate persons in Indonesia 
was not higher than 15 to 20 per cent. In India even a few years 
after independence had been won, when measures had already 
been taken to develop the national education system the literacy 
level was 16 per cent, in Pakistan it was 14 per cent. By the time 
the countries of French Indo-China attained independence there 
were 330 students in France for each 100 thousand citizens and 4 
in Cambodia. In 1948 in Indonesia there was one doctor for 67 
thousand citizens. It is not surprising that as a result of the poor 
living standards and due to the lack of the necessary medical aid 
the average life span in all former colonies is appallingly low in 
comparison with the home countries. In a number of these coun- 
tries a man lives on the average not more than 35 years which is 
almost half the span in the countries that held them in colonial 
enslavement. This is the heritage of the colonial system which is 
yet to be overcome. 

If the home states had really been guided by the interests of 
the colonial peoples, if they had really rendered them assistance 
about which they like to talk instead of engaging in plunder and 



exploitation, the peoples of the colonies and the home countries 
would have developed equally and would not have differed so 
shikingly in the development of the national economy, culture, 
.ukI welfare. But what kind of a commonwealth is this when the 
living standards of the Western countries and the colonies stands 
no comparison. This is not a commonwealth but domination of 
nne over another, with some using the labour and values of others, 
rxploiting and plundering, pumping the national resources into 
the home countries. The colonial peoples have only one way out 
of their misery and lack of justice—the elimination of the colonial 
i egime, 

The advocates of the colonial regime intimidate the peoples 
of the home countries alleging that after the elimination of the 
colonial system the life of the population of industrially developed 
countries would drastically deteriorate. The groundlessness of such 
insertions is obvious. 

First of all such assertions completely give away their authors 
Who involuntarily admit that the home countries are continuing 
to plunder the colonies and dependent countries and gain fabulous 
[unfits. And this is really so, but it is also known that the super- 
profits go not to the broad strata of the home country's population 
I »n i mainly into the pocket of the monopolies. It is not the peoples 
ol I he home countries but the millionaires and billionaires who 

• ling to the colonial regime. 

Secondly, the experience of the development of many countries 
thai have gained national independence shows convincingly that 
with the rapid growth of the national economy the internal mar- 
1 | -i in these countries becomes incomparably more capacious, so 
thai they can consume incomparably more industrial products 
hcitn the more developed countries and at the same time on the 
basis of the uplift of their productive forces produce more raw 
1 1 i.i [<rials, various products and goods necessary for the economy 

• ■I industrially developed countries. This is a more progressive and 
piMonable system of relations between countries that leads to a 
farther rise in the well-being of the peoples of both the colonial 
(iiid dependent countries that were economically backward in the 
|.ii, and the more developed countries. 

The entire course of life, of economic and political develop- 


ment passes the inexorable judgment of history upon the outdated 
shameful colonial regime. 

Of course, one cannot expect that our proposals regarding 
the elimination of the colonial regime, which meet the vital in- 
terests of mankind, will find sympathy on the part of those who are 
still clinging to the colonial order. I can hear in advance the criti- 
cal voice of the defenders of the colonial regime. But we say to 
those who are accustomed to build their welfare at the expense 
of the oppressed peoples in the colonies: think it over, take a look 
at what is going on around you. If not today then soon, very soon, 
the colonial order will finally perish, and if you do not get out 
of the way in time you will be swept away. Neither by plots nor 
by the force of arms can one add life to the doomed colonial re- 
gime. All this will only strengthen and embitter the struggle of 
the peoples against this completely rotten regime. 

But the supporters of the colonial regime are growing fewer 
and fewer even in the colonial powers themselves, and in the long 
run the last word is not theirs. Therefore we appeal to the sense 
and foresight of the peoples of the Western countries, to their 
governments and representatives at this distinguished assembly of 
the United Nations: let us unite in action aimed at the elimina- 
tion of the colonial regime and thus accelerate this commutable 
historical process, and do our utmost so that the peoples of the 
colonial and dependent countries become able to decide their own 

We welcome the sacred struggle of the colonial peoples against 
the colonialists and for their liberation. If the colonial powers do 
not heed the voice of reason and continue their old colonial policy 
of keeping colonial countries in subjugation, the peoples who 
support the position of eliminating the colonial regime should 
render all-out assistance to the fighters for their independence 
against colonialism, against colonial slavery. Moral, material and 
other assistance should be rendered for the completion of the sacred 
and just struggle of the peoples for their independence. 

The Soviet Union on its part has been rendering assistance 
to the economically underdeveloped countries and will be render- 
ing such assistance on an ever-growing scale.* We sincerely help the 
peoples of those countries in the establishment of their inde- 
pendent economy, in the development of their national industry 


which is the mainstay of real independence and of the uplift of 
the people's welfare. 

Nations who oppress other nations cannot themselves be free. 
Every free nation should help the peoples still oppressed to win 
freedom and independence. 

May I express the hope that this session of the General As- 
sembly will become an historic landmark on the way to the com- 
plete and final elimination of the colonial regime on our planet. 
This will be an act of great historic importance expressing the 
aspirations of all nations struggling for national independence, of 
all progressive mankind. 

111. The Disarmament Problem Must Be Solved 

Esteemed ladies and gentlemen 1 Last September on the in- 
structions of the Soviet Government I submitted to the fourteenth 
session of the UN General Assembly the proposals of the Soviet 
Union on general and complete disarmament. The enormous de- 
structive power of modern weapons, the unprecedented scope of 
(he arms race, the accumulation by states of huge stockpiles of 
the weapons of mass extermination all create a threat to the future 
of mankind and make it imperative to seek an approach, new in 
principle, to the disarmament problem. Our proposals are the 
l»ractical expression of such an approach. 

One could not but experience a feeling of gratification due 
to the fact that the ideas raised by us were unanimously approved 
by the United Nations and received wide support by the peoples 
of the whole world. Being guided by the resolution of the last 
session of the General Assembly the Soviet Union together with 
oilier states took the most active part in the negotiations in the 
Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament and bent its efforts in it 
to elaborate a treaty on general and complete disarmament. With- 
out waiting for an international agreement on the question of dis- 
armament the Soviet Union is implementing unilaterally a reduc- 
i i o 1 1 of its armed forces by 1,200,000 men, i.e., by one third, which 
[a generally recognized to have contributed to improving the at- 
mosphere for the negotiations on disarmament. 

The Soviet Government consistently and determinedly pur- 


suing a peaceful policy solemnly declares at this session of the UN 
General Assembly that the Soviet Union maintains its armed forces 
only for the defense of our country and for the fulfillment of obli- 
gations to our allies and friends in case of aggression against them. 
The possibility of our armed forces being used for other purposes 
is ruled out since this would be alien to the very nature of our 
state and to the fundamental principles of its peaceful foreign 

Our country is compelled to maintain armed forces only for 
the reason that our proposals on complete and general disarma- 
ment have not yet been accepted. We shall do everything we can so 
that general and complete disarmament becomes reality and man- 
kind is saved from the arms race and the threat of a new destruc- 
tive war. 

One year has elapsed since the General Assembly adopted the 
resolution on general and complete disarmament. By the present 
pace of life this is comparatively a long period. And there should 
be no doubt that those who are engaged in the production of arms, 
in modernizing and designing new death-dealing means have not 
wasted this time. 

But in the sphere of disarmament no progress has been reached 
in the year that passed. What are the reasons for such a situation 
about which one has to speak with great regret and serious alarm? 
Who is hindering the implementation of the General Assembly 
resolution on general and complete disarmament-this perhaps the 
most important and outstanding decision in the history of the 
United Nations? Who is preventing the deadlock in the disarma- 
ment problem from being broken? 

The facts prove that the lack of any progress in the solution 
of the disarmament problem is the consequence of the position 
taken by the United States and some other states connected with 
it through NATO. 

Throughout the work of the Ten Nation Disarmament Com- 
mittee the Western powers refused to proceed to the working out 
of an agreement on general and complete disarmament seeking 
by every possible means to evade a discussion of the substance 
of the Soviet programme of general and complete disarmament 
transferred by the General Assembly to the Committee for detailed 
consideration. On their part they put forward proposals which 


provided neither for general nor complete disarmament, nor for 
disarmament at all, but only for measures of control over arma- 
ments, that is, control without disarmament. However, one cannot 
fail to see that the establishment of control without disarmament 
would amount to the establishment of a system of international 
espionage, and not only would it fail to promote the consolidation 
of peace but might, on the contrary, aid a potential aggressor in 
carrying out his plans that are dangerous for the peoples. 

The danger lies in the fact that the establishment of control 
over armaments if armaments are retained means in effect that both 
one and the other side will know the quantities, qualities and 
deployment of the armaments possessed by the opposing side. 
( lonsequently, an aggressor could increase his armaments to a 
superior level in order to choose a convenient opportunity and 
launch an attack. We will never accede to control over armaments 
without disarmament because this would mean encouraging the 
aggressor. Our goal is to ensure stable peace which can be achieved 
only through the elimination of armaments and armed forces 
under strict international control. 

Acting contrary to the UN General Assembly resolution the 
Western powers in the Ten Nation Committee indulged in nothing 
but meaningless talk about disarmament trying to hinder any 
possible progress in this matter, and to discredit the idea of gene- and complete disarmament in the eyes of world public opinion. 

The Soviet Government as well as the governments of a num- 
ber of other states found itself forced to interrupt its participation 
in the work of the Ten Nation Committee which had been turned 
by the Western powers into a screen to cover up the arms race. 
1 1 was not easy for the Soviet Government to take this decision 
because it was our country that sponsored the question of general 
mil complete disarmament and exerted every effort to come to a 
I oiisiructive solution of this problem in the Committee in complete 
i' < ord with the General Assembly resolution, but in the existing 
if nation staying in the Committee would only amount to helping 
r he opponents of disarmament. The fact could not be tolerated 
that the great cause of disarmament was being made an object of 
• I "-(illation for purposes hostile to the interests of universal peace. 

That is why the Soviet Government has put the question of 
disarmament up for consideration by the United Nations General 



Assembly, the considerable majority of whose members is in no way 
interested in the arms race and sincerely wishes its termination. 
Taking into account the great importance of the disarmament 
problem and the necessity to make a radical change in the course 
of negotiations, the Soviet Government voiced the opinion that in 
considering this question at the General Assembly the Heads of 
State and Government vested with the necessary power should 
directly participate. We note with gratification that this attitude 
was met with due understanding by the governments of quite a 
number of states whose delegations at the General Assembly are 
led by the most responsible statesmen of their countries. 

Bringing the disarmament question to the plenary meetings 
of the General Assembly we proceed from the fact that considera- 
tion of this question in all its scope should lead, at least, to its 
solution or, at least, give a more concrete direction to the disarma- 
ment negotiations, in which there should now participate along- 
side those states belonging to the opposing military groupings the 
states adhering to a neutral course. 

Seeking to facilitate the work of the General Assembly and 
to make the discussion of the disarmament problem more specific 
the Soviet Government submits for consideration by the General 
Assembly its proposal "Basic provisions of the Treaty on general 
and complete disarmament." We request the President of the 
General Assembly and the UN Secretariat to circulate this pro- 
posal among the delegations as an official document of the General 
Assembly as well as our explanatory memorandum which presents 
the position of the Soviet Government on the disarmament prob- 
lem in greater detail. 

The new Soviet proposal on the question of general and com- 
plete disarmament which has as its basis the provisions of the 
Soviet Government's proposals of June 2, 1960, which were sub- 
mitted for the consideration of all the governments of the world 
has been drawn up with due regard for all the useful points which 
were made during the past year in the course of the discussion 
of this question by political and public circles of various countries 
of the world. In many respects this proposal meets half way the 
position of the Western powers which, as w« hope, will facilitate 
an early agreement on disarmament. 

We now provide, in particular, for the elimination of all 


means of delivery of nuclear weapons to their target as early as 
in the first stage of general and complete disarmament, include a 
detailed elaboration of measures for effective international control 
in all the stages and take into account the wishes of some Western 
powers that the reduction of the strength of the armed forces and 
conventional armaments should be provided for from the out- 
set. Quite a number of other changes and modifications were 
brought into our programme. All these changes, in our opinion, 
make the programme of general and complete disarmament more 
concrete and even more realistic and practicable. 

The detailed elaboration of the Agreement on general and 
complete disarmament is, of course, a complicated task for the 
solution of which all the participants in negotiations should exert 
much effort and labour. Various questions may arise in the course 
of this work the solution of which would demand flexibility and 
realistic appraisal of the international situation. 

But we should all be aware that no flexibility will help the 
solution of the disarmament problem and all the efforts and labour 
devoted to this aim will, as hitherto, be wasted if not all the 
participants in the negotiations are guided by a sincere desire to 
realize mankind's eternal dream of disarmament. 

However, such a desire was obviously lacking in the Ten 
Nation Committee insofar as the USA and its NATO partners 
were concerned. So far, there is still no evidence that they have 
such a desire. In this connection one cannot ignore the new at- 
tempts to sidetrack the whole matter which were undertaken by the 
USA not long before the General Assembly started its work. Is it 
not clear to everybody that the USA pursued precisely this aim 
when it tried to get the convocation of the UN Disarmament Com- 
mission only a few weeks before the opening of the General As- 
sembly session? The experience of the work in the Ten Nation 
Committee showed that there arose difficulties in the negotiations 
in the Committee on practical problems of disarmament as a result 
of the unwillingness of the Western powers to solve the disarma- 
ment problem. The proposals of the Soviet Union submitted for 
consideration by the Ten Nation Committee are widely known 
and have been appreciated by world public opinion as quite clear 
and realistic. It is necessary to emphasize that they took into ac- 
count some wishes and proposals of the Western powers. Neverthe- 


less Mr. Lodge, the US representative in the United Nations Dis- 
armament Commission, alleged that the Soviet Union was propos- 
ing buying a pig in a poke. In this case one may wonder whether 
Mr. Lodge, like the hero of oriental fairy tales, has not put him- 
self into a poke which prevents him from seeing what is well seen 
and understood by all. 

We were also surprised by another statement by Mr. Lodge 
who opposed submitting the disarmament question for considera- 
tion by this session of the General Assembly. He said he believed 
that world public opinion should hear all this and hear it in such 
a forum as this Commission which dealt exclusively with disarma- 
ment and not merely hear it all at the General Assembly where it 
would be but one of more than 80 items. 

I am personally acquainted with Mr. Lodge and knowing that 
for many years he represented the interests of the United States 
of America in the United Nations I am surprised that he is of so 
low an opinion of his own labour. However, that may be precisely 
the reason, since Mr. Lodge has become so accustomed to the ques- 
tions under discussion at the General Assembly that he counts 
them by scores and hastens to refer them to an auxiliary body so 
as to hide them from public opinion in a poke. 

We regard with respect all the commissions of the United 
Nations but for us the United Nations General Assembly is the 
most representative and authoritative forum of the peoples. We 
hope that the representatives of states of all continents present 
here do not share such a point of view and will not consider the 
disarmament question as a 79th problem. This is the cardinal 
question which agitates the whole of humanity, and it is strange 
that this is not realized by the representative of the United States 
of America at the United Nations. 

Even less disguised attempts were made in the UN Disarm- 
ament Commission to channel the negotiations on disarmament 
in such a direction that thereafter no solution of this problem 
can be found. How otherwise can be evaluated the proposals of 
the USA put forward in the UN Disarmament Commission to the 
effect that the USA and the USSR should each transfer under inter- 
national supervision 30 thousand kilograms of fissionable materials 
for nuclear weapons purposes— this, by the way, was also repeated 
by the President of the United States yesterday-or that these 


countries should start closing down, one after another, plants 
producing such materials for military purposes? 

Only an ignorant person can believe that these proposals are 
aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear war. Indeed, the US pro- 
posals do not provide either for elimination of nuclear weapons 
or destruction of their stockpiles or even the prohibition of their 
use. They provide for the removal of certain amounts of fissionable 
materials from the existing stockpiles of these materials which have 
been accumulated by states for military use. It is well known, 
however, that at present the existing stockpiles of fissionable ma- 
terials are so huge that they are more than enough to annihilate 
whole countries and peoples. It is no accident that when putting 
forward its proposals the USA kept silent about the quantity of 
nuclear weapons and fissionable materials for their future manufac- 
ture that will remain at its disposal after the allotment of 30 
thousand kilograms. If they had mentioned this, it would be even 
more evident that such a step would not substantially alleviate 
the threat of nuclear war. 

The Soviet Government is deeply convinced that only a radi- 
cal solution of the disarmament problem which would provide for 
the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons together with the 
cessation of their manufacture and tests and the destruction of 
all accumulated stockpiles of these weapons can fully accord with 
the task of delivering mankind from the threat of nuclear war 
looming over it. That is precisely the goal which the Soviet Union 
is trying to achieve, persistently and resolutely advocating general 
and complete disarmament. 

All this, in our opinion, leads to an important conclusion: 
to break the deadlock in the disarmament problem at last, the 
General Assembly should call to order those who impede the 
solution of the disarmament problem, who try to supplant busi- 
nesslike negotiations on disarmament with meaningless beatings 
about the bush. 

Objectively appraising the situation and the correlation of 
forces existing in the world the Soviet Government is deeply 
convinced that disarmament in our time is not only necessary 
but possible. The struggle for peace has now become a great 
banner mobilizing the peoples. Even those governments which, 



as before, are suffering from an inclination to the "cold war" 
policy and to the armaments race cannot afford to ignore it. 

The United Nations has no other, more important and urgent 
task than to contribute to the cause of disarmament becoming a 
real fact and promoting at last the initiation of practical deeds, 
namely: the return of soldiers to their homes, the destruction of 
weapons including nuclear weapons and means of their delivery, 

A great aim is worth great effort. The Soviet Government 
expresses the hope that all the states concerned about consoli- 
dating peace will exert their energy and will spare no effort to 
solve the disarmament problem, this most important problem of 
today. There can be no doubt that the peoples, the world over, 
will greatly appreciate the decision of the United Nations General 
Assembly on the disarmament question. 

IV. Peaceful Co-existence Is the Only Sensible Path for 
Developing International Relations in Our Time 

Ladies and gentlemen! The peoples of the Soviet Union and 
the Soviet Government are unfailingly striving for the principles 
of peaceful co-existence to be firmly established in relations be- 
tween states, for these principles to become the cardinal law of 
life everywhere in present-day society. Underlying these principles 
is not some "gimmick" invented by the communists but simple 
things dictated by life itself, namely that relations between all 
states should develop in a peaceful way, without resort to force, 
without wars, without interference in the internal affairs of one 

I will not disclose a secret by saying that we entertain no 
liking for capitalism. But we do not want to foist our system upon 
other countries. So let those, who determine the policy of states 
whose social system differs from ours, also abandon their fruitless 
and dangerous attempts to dictate their will. It is high time for 
them too to admit that the choice of a way of life is the internal 
concern of every people. Let us build up our relations taking into 
consideration the actual facts of reality. This will mean peaceful 
co-existence. 4 

One cannot disregard the fact that a force, much greater than 
a wish, a will or the decisions of any government, is acting in 


favour of the policy of peaceful co-existence. This force is the 
desire which is natural and common for humanity, to avert the 
calamities of war in which all the unprecedented means of mass 
extermination, accumulated in the course of recent years, would 
be used. It stands to reason that acceptance of the principles of 
peaceful co-existence does not mean that it is necessary to begin 
building up relations between states on a completely new basis. 
In fact, peaceful co-existence is already a reality and has found 
international recognition. The proof of this is that the General As- 
sembly has twice in the recent period adopted resolutions reaffirm- 
ing the need for peaceful co-existence. Whether they want it or 
not, even those states whose governments still do not want to 
voice their approval of the ideas of peaceful co-existence, are 
forced to practice them in many respects. 

In fact, the question now is how to make peaceful co-existence 
secure, how to prevent departures from it which now and then 
give rise to dangerous international conflicts. In other words, as 
I have already said once, the choice we have is not great: it is 
either peaceful co-existence which would promote the best human 
ideals or else co-existence "at dagger's point," 

If one is to speak about the actual shape of peaceful co- 
existence one might point to the relations maintained by the 
socialist countries with the new states of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America which have set themselves free from the oppression of 
colonialism and embarked upon the path of independent policy. 
Typical of such relations are friendship, great mutual sympathy 
and respect, economic and technical assistance to less developed 
countries without any political or military strings attached. The 
relations of the countries of the socialist camp with neutral cap- 
italist states such as, for instance, Finland, Austria, Afghanistan, 
Sweden and others can also be cited as another good example. 

I think the ideas of peaceful co-existence may triumph even 
in those countries whose governments have not yet abandoned 
either hostile acts against the socialist states or rude pressure on 
non-committed states which pursue an independent policy. In these 
countries too the realization is growing of the danger of the "cold 
war" policy and the folly of balancing on the brink of the prec- 


When I was last in the United States I met statesmen, busi- 
nessmen, workers and farmers, scientists and trade union leaders. 
These meetings had for me, and also, I think, for the people I met, 
great importance. My conviction has grown that the American 
people do not want war, that in the highest strata of the Amer- 
ican society there are people who deeply understand the necessity 
to live in peace and rule out war from the life of mankind, peo- 
ple who are able to go against deeply rooted prejudices. 

I left the United States with the thought that there exist 
practical possibilities to remove from the relations between our 
states the gloomy shadows of suspicion, fear and distrust, that the 
Soviet Union and the United States could go hand in hand in the 
name of consolidating peace and establishing effective international 
co-operation of all states. I must say that this conviction was not 
shaken despite all that took place between the United States and 
the Soviet Union in the recent months. In our time it would be 
sheer nonsense if the two most powerful nations could not come 
to terms between themselves. This should be done at least in 
virtue of the great importance of the relations between the USSR 
and the USA for the destinies of the world. The Soviet Govern- 
ment is ready to go on doing its best to improve relations between 
our country and the United States of America. 

The policy of peaceful co-existence presupposes willingness 
to solve all outstanding issues without resort to force by means 
of negotiations and reasonable concessions. Everyone knows that 
during the years of the "cold war" such questions chiefly did not 
find their solution which led to the creation of dangerous hotbeds 
of tension in Europe, Asia and in other parts of the world as well. 

The international knots which are the heritage of the Second 
World War are still entangled. First and foremost among them 
stands the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany and the 
solution on this basis of the crucial question of West Berlin, If 
a peace treaty with Germany has not so far been concluded this 
is completely on the conscience of the governments of the Western 
powers which to speak without beating about the bush have been 
sabotaging this problem in the course of mar^ years. These gov- 
ernments have got into the habit of outright rejection of all the 
Soviet Union's proposals on a German peace treaty while at the 


same time they themselves over the fifteen years that have elapsed 
since the war did not find a suitable occasion to come forward 
with their own proposals in this respect. 

As a result of this the situation in Europe remains unstable, 
fraught with the danger of acute conflicts. The absence of a 
peace treaty can gladden most of all the revanchist and militarist 
forces in West Germany. They are taking advantage of this so as 
step by step to move forward towards the realization of their pur- 
poses which are dangerous for the cause of peace. At the time of 
the war in Korea when the relations between the great powers 
were aggravated they came forward with the question of creating 
the Bundeswehr and succeeded in this. Today we are the witnesses 
of agitation by the ruling circles of the FRG who hope that the 
present tense moment will allow them to pocket nuclear and 
rocket weapons. 

Despite the fact that the scheduled summit conference which 
was to have considered among others the question of a peace treaty 
with Germany was disrupted, we believe that there exist objective 
conditions for an agreed solution of questions left open after the 
last war. As we have already stated the Soviet Government is 
prepared to wait a while with the solution of the question of a 
German peace treaty to try to achieve agreement on this treaty 
at the summit conference which the Soviet Union has proposed 
be held in a few months' time. We would like to hope that the 
Soviet Union's efforts in this direction will be supported also by 
the governments of the USA, Great Britain and France. 

The Soviet Union believes that the solution of the Korean 
question is most essential for the consolidation of peace in the 
Far East and in the whole world. 

Only madmen can contemplate solving the Korean question 
through the use of armed force. 

The sole correct proposal— to leave the solution of the ques- 
tion of the peaceful reunification of Korea to the Koreans them- 
selves without any interference from outside— finds ever growing 
recognition. The necessary condition for this is the immediate and 
complete withdrawal of all American troops from South Korea 
whose presence poisons the atmosphere not only in Korea, but in 


the whole of the Far East and made possible such shameful facts 
as the falsification of elections in South Korea. 

The proposal of the Government of the Korean People's 
Democratic Republic about a confederation of North and South 
Korea is as reasonable as the proposal of the Government of the 
German Democratic Republic on setting up a confederation be- 
tween the two German states. This is the only way to a good start 
for the peaceful reunification of these states. 

During the recent years at sharp turns of international life 
the peaceful states were compelled more than once to come for- 
ward in defense of the just cause and to take effective measures 
to direct developments into a peaceful channel. The United Na- 
tions helped to rebuff the aggressors who made attempts upon the 
freedom and rights of Egypt, it helped to call to order the inter- 
ventionists in Lebanon and Jordan. We would like to hope that 
the United Nations will successfully accomplish the responsible 
tasks dictated by the world situation which is still disturbing. 

The experience of the work of the United Nations has dem- 
onstrated that this body is useful and necessary because in it are 
represented all states which are called upon to resolve the press- 
ing issues of international relationships by negotiations so as not 
to bring them to such a state that conflicts and wars might break 
out. This is a positive aspect in the work of the United Nations. 
This, indeed, constituted the main objective in the creation of 
the United Nations. 

In the course of the United Nations activities, however, some 
of its negative aspects also came to light. These negative aspects 
found their expression in the fact that so far certain countries 
succeed in imposing their will and their policy in the solution 
of specific matters in the United Nations to the detriment of other 
states. This does not further the basic goal of this Organization, 
does not promote the adoption of such decisions as would reflect 
the interests of all the countries making up the United Nations. 
The executive machinery of the Organization is also consti- 
tuted partially. It often approaches the solution of questions from 
the standpoint of a certain group of countries This is particularly 
true of the activities of the United Nations Secretary General. As 
a rule the Western countries that make up the military blocs of 


the Western powers exploit this post in their interests by nom- 
inating for the post of United Nations Secretary General a candi- 
date that is acceptable to themselves. The result is that in many 
cases the practical routine work of the United Nations and of its 
Secretariat is in effect carried out one-sidedly. The personnel of 
the Organization is picked one-sidedly as well. 

Partiality in the implementation of practical measures on the 
part of the United Nations was particularly manifested in the 
events that flared up in the Congo. Mr. Hammarskjold, the Sec- 
retary-General, in implementing the decisions of the Security 
Council, in effect sided with the colonialists and with the coun- 
ties that support the colonialists. This is a very dangerous thing. 

We have come to the firm conclusion that the time has come 
(o create conditions for more effective work both of the United 
Nations as a whole and of this Organization's executive working 
body. I repeat, the matter concerns primarily the Secretary-Gen- 
eral and his staff. The necessity of certain changes and improve- 
ments should particularly be borne in mind in the light of the 
immediate future. 

For instance, we are now conducting negotiations on disarma- 
ment. For the time being the United States and its allies are doing 
their utmost to resist general and complete disarmament, and are 
.seeking all sorts of pettifogging pretexts to thwart or at least to 
stave off indefinitely the solution of the disarmament question. 
But we believe that common sense will prevail and sooner or later 
all states will influence those who resist a reasonable solution of 
the disarmament problem. Therefore the United Nations machin- 
ery should now be adapted to the conditions that will come into 
being in the course of the implementation of a disarmament 

An identical point of view has materialized in our proposals 
as well as in those of the countries making up the NATO military 
;i ligament regarding the necessity to follow up agreement on dis- 
.umament with the creation of armed forces of all countries under 
international control to be used by the United Nations as decided 
liy the Security Council. 

The Soviet Government believes that if the question of utiliz- 
ing these international armed forces is approached correctly they 



really can be useful. But the experience of the Congo puts us on 
our guard. This experience indicates that the United Nations forces 
are being used precisely in the way against which we warned and 
which we resolutely oppose. The Secretary-General, Mr. Ham* 
marskjold, has taken the stand of merely formal condemnation of 
the colonialists. In actual practice, however, he is pursuing the 
line of the colonialists, is opposing the legitimate Government of 
the Congo and the Congolese people, is supporting the renegades 
who, under the guise of fighting for the independence of the Re- 
public of the Congo are in fact continuing the policy of the 
colonialists and are apparently getting remuneration from them 
for their treachery. 

What is to be done in this case? If this is the way in which 
the international armed forces will in practice be used, that is, 
to suppress the liberation movement, then under such conditions 
it will naturally be difficult to reach agreement on the creation 
of international armed forces since there will be no guarantees 
of their not being used for reactionary purposes alien to the inter- 
ests of peace. Provision should be made to guard against any state 
falling into the same predicament in which the Republic of the 
Congo now finds itself. We are sure that other states also under- 
stand this danger. Such solutions should therefore be sought as 
would exclude similar occurrences in the future. 

The Soviet Government has come to a definite conclusion on 
this point and wishes to expound its point of view at the United 
Nations General Assembly. Conditions have obviously matured 
when the post of the Secretary-General— who alone governs the 
staff and alone interprets and executes the decisions of the Secu- 
rity Council and sessions of the United Nations General Assembly- 
should be abolished. It is expedient to renounce the system under 
which all the practical work in the period between General Assem- 
bly sessions and Security Council meetings is determined by the 
Secretary-General alone. 

The executive body of the United Nations should reflect the 
actual situation that obtains in the world today. The United Na- 
tions includes states parties to the military .blocs of the Western 
powers, socialist states and neutralist countries. This would there- 
fore be completely justified, and we would be guaranteed to a 


greater extent against the negative developments which came to 
light in the work of the United Nations especially during the re- 
cent events in the Congo. 

We consider it reasonable and just for the executive body of 
the United Nations to be constituted not as one person— the Sec- 
retary-General— but as three representatives of the states belong- 
ing to the three basic above-mentioned groups who could be in- 
vested with the lofty trust of the United Nations. The crux of 
the matter is not even in the name of this body but in that this 
executive body should represent the states parties to the military 
blocs of the Western powers, the socialist states, and the neutralist 
states. This composition of the United Nations executive body will 
create conditions for a more correct implementation of the de- 
cisions taken. 

In brief we consider it expedient to set up instead of a Secre- 
tary-General who is presently the interpreter and executor of the 
Assembly and Security Council decisions a collective executive 
body of the United Nations comprising three persons each of whom 
would represent a certain group of states. A definite guarantee 
would thereby be created that the work of the United Nations 
Executive would not be conducted to the detriment of any of 
these groups of states. Then the United Nations executive will 
really be a democratic body, it will really safeguard the interests 
of all United Nations member states irrespective of the social 
;md political systems of the various states making up the United 
Nations. This is particularly necessary at the present time, and 
will be the more so in the future. 

There exist other inconveniences as well which the United 
Nations members are now experiencing. These inconveniences are 
caused by the location of the United Nations Organization. It 
would seem that the United States of America which calls itself 
a free democratic country should do its utmost to facilitate the 
work of the United Nations, to create all necessary conditions for 
the representatives of states constituting this organization. Prac- 
tice shows, however, that the United States restricts and curtails 
the rights of the representatives of various states. Facts are known, 
for instance, of the representatives of young African and Asian 


states being subjected to racial discrimination in the United States 
and, moreover, to attacks by gangsters. 

The representatives of the United States authorities explain 
the various restrictions of the rights of representatives of states in 
the United Nations by the fact that it is allegedly difficult for 
them to ensure their security. I wish to emphasize that we are 
of a better opinion of the hospitality of the American people 
than that which may result from such statements and restrictions. 
But these statements cannot be overlooked and, likewise, the 
inconveniences cannot fail to be taken into account which are 
put in the way of the work of the United Nations in these in- 

The question arises of whether or not thought should be 
given to the choice o£ another locale for the United Nations Head- 
quarters which would better facilitate the effective work of this 
international organization, Switzerland or Austria might well be 
such a place, for example. I can declare in all responsibility that 
if it should be considered expedient to house the United Nations 
Headquarters in the Soviet Union we guarantee the best possible 
conditions for its work, complete freedom and security for the 
representatives of all states irrespective of their political or re- 
ligious convictions, and of the colour of their skin since in our 
country the sovereign rights of all states, the equality of all 
nations, big and small, are held in high esteem. 

You all know that in the past the Soviet Government sup- 
ported the proposal that the United States of America be chosen 
as the locale of the United Nations. However, recent developments 
show that the United States is evidently irked and burdened by 
this. Then perhaps the release of the United States from such a 
burden should be contemplated. 

* # # 

Ladies and Gentlemen: Addressing the delegates to the United 
Nations General Assembly with proposals on these essentially 
important questions of our time the Soviet Government would 
like to stress their specific, extraordinary significance for the destiny 
of the world. 

The importance of the disarmament problem requires no 


special proof. This question is of such vital importance that it, 
certainly, has to be discussed at the plenary session of the Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

The question of the elimination of the colonial regime is 
also so vital that the necessity of its discussion at the plenary 
session of the General Assembly will apparently meet with full 
understanding by all the delegates. 

We believe that especial importance has been acquired by 
the question of the aggressive actions of the United States against 
the Soviet Union which found their expression in the despatch 
of American planes into Soviet air space. This is a fact which 
by itself goes beyond the limits of the relations between states 
admissible in time of peace. But this question assumes particular 
importance also for the reason that the President of the United 
States, Mr. Eisenhower, himself declared the aggressive flights of 
the American planes a normal business allegedly necessary for the 
security of the United States. At the same time the US Govern- 
ment arbitrarily assumed the right to send such planes in future. 
This is why since the matter concerns the violation of the sovereign 
rights not only of the Soviet Union but of other states as well the 
question of aggressive actions of the United States must be dealt 
with by the United Nations at its plenary session. 

The continuation of such actions and especially their interpre- 
tation by the US President as state policy can at any moment 
plunge mankind into a third world war. Therefore, I repeat, it 
is the opinion of the Soviet Government that this question as well 
as the questions of disarmament and the elimination of colonial- 
ism must be discussed at the plenary session of the United Nations 
General Assembly and not in the Committees. 

The matter concerns the representatives of the overwhelming 
majority of states of the world expressing at this session of the 
General Assembly their opinions on the cardinal problems which 
today agitate public opinion and all people on earth who are 
interested in the further development of freedom and democracy 
and yearn for peace for themselves and their children. 

The Soviet Government hopes that the questions submitted 
for consideration at the present United Nations Assembly will 


meet with support and understanding, since they are motivated 
by the sincere desire to secure a better life and tranquillity on 
our planet. 

Indeed, man lives and works in order to put to good use all 
his strength, all his faculties and his possibilities. The world in 
our time is diversified but at the same time it is one. We live 
on the same planet and it will depend on us in what way we shall 
arrange affairs on it. 

Man's mind works wonders today. Tomorrow even more 
boundless prospects will be revealed in the field of science and 
technology. The question is one of the great scientific achievements 
of our age being harnessed to the good of the peoples, 

I think you will share my opinion that the attention of hun- 
dreds of millions of people is focused today on the General Assem- 
bly hall. What do the peoples of many countries of the world ex- 
pect from us? A just and honest decision on the crucial problems 
of our time. Peoples may be mistaken in their choice of govern- 
ments. One or another historical situation may lead to injustice 
in any country. But, however complicated the internal relation- 
ships in states may be, people are apt to hope and believe in 
the best. People want to live and prosper, and the main thing is 
that they want their children to possess more and live better. 

That is why we all, and I am saying this on behalf of the 
Soviet people, should be inspired with the understanding of our 
high and particular mission. Mankind has advanced so far ahead 
that it cannot tolerate in its life the remnants of the grim reaction- 
ary past. Mankind has advanced so far ahead that it realizes the 
deep and grave danger of misusing scientific discoveries for the 
sake of the arms race. 

So let us leave to our successors, our children, grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren good memories of our time. Let them 
take the men of our time as an example and say: once the in- 
habitants of the earth had complicated and most difficult prob- 
lems. And they, having come together at the United Nations As- 
sembly, resolved them, succeeded in settling them in the name of 
a better future. 

So let us act in such a way as to make the fifteenth session of 


the United Nations General Assembly become an Assembly not 
only of hope but of the realization of hopes. 

The Soviet Government is ready to do its utmost so that 
colonial slavery should collapse today, that today questions of dis- 
armament should find their concrete and businesslike solution. 

The Soviet Government is ready to do its utmost to achieve 
today the prohibition of the nuclear weapons tests so that this 
means of mass extermination can be banned and destroyed. 

It could be said that these are complicated questions, which 
cannot be solved at one go. But these are questions presented 
by life and they must be settled before it is too late. The solution 
of these questions cannot be evaded. 

Concluding my address I wish to emphasize once again that 
the Soviet Government, guided by the interests of the Soviet peo- 
ple, by the interests of the citizens of the free socialist state, once 
again is proposing to all: let us talk, argue, but let us solve the 
questions of general and complete disarmament. Let us bury 
colonialism that has been condemned by mankind. 

No further delay is tolerable, no further procrastination can 
be tolerated. The peoples of all states, irrespective of the social 
systems of these states, are expecting the United Nations General 
Assembly at last to adopt decisions meeting the aspiration of the 

Thank you. 


September 23, 1960 

of the USSR Government on Disarmament 

Submitted for Consideration by the Fifteenth Session 
of the United Nations General Assembly 

The Government of the Union o£ Soviet Socialist Republics 
has submitted for consideration by the General Assembly of the 
United Nations the question of disarmament and of the state of 
affairs as regards the implementation of the resolution of the 
previous session of the General Assembly on this question. 

The disarmament problem is the cardinal problem of today 
on whose solution largely, if not chiefly, depends the preservation 
of peace. This is now recognized by all states. At the same time 
the Soviet Government is deeply concerned over the failure thus 
far to make any headway in the settlement of this problem. 

Today the states have already stockpiled and continue stock- 
piling huge quantities of nuclear weapons and the means of their 
delivery to the target in any part of the world. This in itself 
gravely endangers peace since among the countries possessing nu- 
clear weapons there are those which proclaim brinkmanship and 
gross violations of the sovereignty of other states as their state 
policy without stopping short of such methods as are usually em- 
ployed in wartime. 

At a time when the states possess huge stockpiles of nuclear 
weapons every new step in the arms race enhances the danger of 
the so-called accidental outbreak of war as well. Inaccuracies in 
the work of the radar system can lead to misinterpretation of 
the radar signals which may result in a start of military operations 
and, consequently, in unprecedented disaster. A misunderstanding 
of orders by pilots who, according to the United States Govern- 
ment, make routine bomber nights carrying atomic weapons may 
lead to these bombs being dropped on the territory of another 
state with all the ensuing consequences. Malfunctioning of elec- 
tronic devices in military nuclear rocket systems may also set off 
the chain reaction of war conflict. * 

If the nuclear arms race continues, it will be more and more 
difficult to prevent such "accidents." 


The arms race is one of the major factors increasing distrust 
and suspicion in the relations between states and poisoning the 
world atmosphere. The "cold war" hated by the peoples is a prod- 
uct of the arms race, hampers its elimination and makes the arms 
race all the more dangerous for states and peoples. 

The ending of the arms race is a way toward the consolida- 
tion of peace. The solution of the disarmament problem would 
also yield great economic gains. Disarmament would release enor- 
mous material and financial values which could be used for the 
good of mankind. 

Over a hundred billion dollars has again been burnt in the 
huge furnace of war preparations in the one year that has elapsed 
since the fourteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly 
which unanimously approved the idea of general and complete 
disarmament. Simple calculations show that these resources would 
be enough to bring about a radical technical and economic re- 
construction of the entire African continent. This money could 
be used to feed hundreds of millions of starving people for a 
year; only one per cent of the total sum of the military outlays 
of states would be enough to build more than a hundred fully 
equipped universities in countries which are greatly in need of 
highly qualified specialists. The money spent on the building of 
a single American nuclear powered submarine would suffice to 
build at least 50 houses with 100 flats each or 10,000 cottages. Such 
are the losses sustained by humanity due to the arms race! 

Taking into account the fact that for many years the nego- 
tiations on isolated disarmament measures were invariably dead- 
locked by the Western powers, a year ago, at the fourteenth session 
of the UN General Assembly the Soviet Union proposed an entire- 
ly new approach to the solution of this problem, and put forward 
the idea of general and complete disarmament under strict and 
effective international control. 

Life itself has prompted the raising of the question of gen- 
eral and complete disarmament, as in the age of nuclear weapons 
and powerful rockets partial or halfway disarmament measures 
cannot fully eliminate the danger of war. 

Only general and complete disarmament can ensure the solu- 
tion of this great problem. Only general and complete disarma- 
ment can secure lasting peace and tranquillity for mankind. 


In raising the question of general and complete disarmament 
the Soviet Union which is today generally recognized to be one 
of the mightiest military powers of the world was proposing on 
its own initiative to forego this military might forever, to elimi- 
nate it completely, provided other Great Powers follow suit. If 
the United States, Great Britain, France and the other Western 
powers are ready to do so, it only remains to agree on how better 
to translate this into reality. But if they are not ready it means 
that their statements that they desire peace and that they need 
armaments only for defense against possible aggression are not to 
be believed. 

Therein lay the core of the Soviet Union's proposal on gen- 
eral and complete disarmament. 

The new approach to the solution of the disarmament prob- 
lem stems from the very nature of our country's socialist system. 
Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, used to say that 
disarmament is an ideal of socialism. Indeed, the socialist states 
do not need armaments for any other purposes except defense 
against possible attack, from the outside and ensuring the preserva- 
tion of peace throughout the world. The Soviet Armed Forces have 
not and cannot have any other objectives, for the foreign policy 
of socialism is a peaceful and humane foreign policy. And if the 
Western powers agreed to the renunciation of armed forces and 
armaments, to the elimination of the means of waging war the 
socialist states would have no need whatsoever for armed forces 
and armaments and there would be no reasons for maintaining 
rocket troops, army, navy, air force and anti-aircraft defense. None 
of these is needed for the successful building of communism in 
the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Our lands are rich 
in natural resources, our people like to work, science and tech- 
nology render good service to our cause. 

War is not needed for the triumph of communism, since the 
struggle for the communist ideas is waged not between states but 
between the classes inside each state. It is a slander on socialist 
countries to accuse them of trying to impose their ideas on other 
peoples and other states by means of war. 

At the fourteenth session the Soviet Government did not con- 
fine itself to raising the question of general and complete dis- 


armament; at the same time it placed before the United Nations 
a concrete programme for such disarmament. 

Trying to facilitate as much as possible the settlement of the 
disarmament problem, and to create an atmosphere conducive to 
negotiations on this problem the Supreme Soviet of the USSR 
made a decision to reduce the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union 
by 1,200,000 men, i.e. by one-third. This decision is being scrupu- 
lously carried out. 

Now that a year has passed since the Soviet Union put for- 
ward the question of general and complete disarmament it can 
be said with certitude that the idea of general and complete 
disarmament has been supported by all peoples who want this 
idea to be realized as soon as possible. And this is but natural 
since the peoples of all countries—not only socialist but capitalist 
alike— want peace, want to see the world free of armaments and 
free of wars between states. Neither the Soviet people, nor the 
American, British, French, Chinese people, nor the peoples of 
Africa, Asia, Latin America and Australia want war. 

The will of the peoples for peace found its expression in the 
resolution of the last session of the General Assembly on general 
and complete disarmament which, as you all remember, was 
adopted unanimously: not a single state opposed the resolution, 
all of them supported it. Even those states which were stepping 
up the armaments race and continue to do so, and which, as 
experience has proved, did not intend, in fact, to give up the 
brink of war policy, did not dare at the time to voice open oppo- 
sition to general and complete disarmament. 

The General Assembly declared in its resolution that the 
question of general and complete disarmament is the most im- 
portant question facing the world today, called upon the govern- 
ments to make every effort to reach a constructive solution of 
this problem and expressed the hope that measures for general 
and complete disarmament under effective international control 
would be worked out in detail and agreed upon at an early date. 
This laid down the general line of disarmament negotiations. It 
was decided to conduct the negotiations within the framework 
of the Ten Nation Committee. 

The peoples of the world reposed their best hopes in those 
negotiations. They wanted to believe that now all states, and par- 


ticularly the Great Powers possessing the most powerful weapons, 
would find a new approach to the disarmament problem and 
agree at last on its practical solution. 

A year has passed since that time. Unfortunately it has to 
be stated that this year was lost insofar as disarmament is con- 
cerned. This is an alarming result which cannot and must not be 

What has happened? Why did it prove impossible to take a 
single step forward towards the implementation of the said reso- 
lution though a year has already passed since its adoption by the 
General Assembly? Why did the negotiations in the Ten Nation 
Committee on Disarmament fail to produce any positive results? 
One should turn to the facts to answer these questions. And 
the facts prove that again, as in the past, two opposing lines, two 
positions have clearly and definitely emerged in the course of the 
negotiations in the Ten Nation Committee. 

One of them was in line with the demands of the peoples for 
an early settlement of the disarmament problem. The other one 
was in direct contradiction with those demands and was a poorly 
camouflaged attempt to prevent disarmament. 

The line of militating for general and complete disarmament 
was pursued in the Ten Nation Disarmament Committee by the 
Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria, i.e. 
by the socialist states. The line of opposing the solution of the 
disarmament problem was followed by the United States, Great 
Britain, France, Italy, Canada, i.e. by the Western powers— mem- 
bers of the North Atlantic military bloc. 

Our position in the course of the negotiations was crystal 
clear: the socialist states proposed to get down to business as soon 
as possible, to start the practical solution of the problem, to dis- 
cuss in a businesslike way a programme of general and complete 
disarmament and to work out an appropriate treaty. 

The stand taken by the Soviet Union and other socialist 
countries was flexible throughout the negotiations. The delega- 
tions of these countries in the Committee expressed their readiness 
to hear with due attention and respect all the remarks, proposals 
and considerations of the Western powers wjth regard to the 
Soviet programme of general and complete disarmament that 
would be aimed at a speedy settlement of this vital task. The 


Soviet Government has proved its readiness by its deeds. It was 
prepared to consider any other realistic programme for disarm- 

When we learned from the conversations with the President of 
France, General de Gaulle, that the French Government thought 
it advisable to start disarmament with the elimination of the 
means of delivery of nuclear weapons to the target, the Soviet 
Government treated the idea in all seriousness and having given 
it thorough thought made a substantial amendment to the pro- 
gramme of general and complete disarmament. The amended 
programme provided for all the means of delivery of nuclear 
weapons to the target being eliminated in the first stage of 
general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Government 
agreed to this, being guided by the desire to facilitate agreement, 
though it is common knowledge that the Soviet Union has supe- 
riority in the most effective modern means of delivery of nuclear 
weapons, namely in intercontinental ballistic missiles. 

The Soviet Government met the Western powers halfway 
in a number of other questions as well. 

The United States and the Western powers sought from the 
Soviet Union a more specific and detailed description of the con- 
trol system in our programme of general and complete disarm- 
ament. The Soviet Government took into account this considera- 
tion also. The amended Soviet proposals set forth comprehensive- 
ly and with many details a plan for the establishment of a control 
system and the implementation of strict international control over 
all disarmament measures. Now no one can assert, unless he 
wants to contradict the facts, that the Soviet Union is evading 
the establishment of strict international control over measures for 
general and complete disarmament. It goes without saying that at 
the same time the Soviet Government is in favour of control over 
disarmament while strongly objecting to all attempts to impose 
control over armaments, i.e. control without disarmament which, 
as every one will understand, would merely be a legalized system 
of international espionage. 

After all, the establishment of control over armaments, if 
armaments are retained, means, in effect, that both one and the 
other side will know the quantities, qualities, and deployment of 
the armaments possessed by the opposing side. Consequently, an 


aggressor could increase his armaments to a superior level in 
order to choose a convenient opportunity and launch an attack. 
We will never accede to control over armaments without dis- 
armament, because this would mean encouraging the aggressor. 
Our goal is the winning of stable peace which can be achieved 
only through the elimination of armaments and armed forces 
under strict international control. 

For instance, in case agreement is reached on the destruction, 
in the first stage, of all means of delivery of nuclear weapons to 
the target, on the dismantling of foreign military bases on the 
territories of alien states, and the withdrawal of foreign troops 
from those territories, then appropriate measures for control over 
the carrying out of these arrangements should also be worked out. 

The same applies to the subsequent stages of disarmament. 

Such is the stand of the USSR as regards the questions of 
general and complete disarmament under effective international 
control which the Soviet Government took in the course of nego- 
tiations in the Ten Nation Committee and still adheres to. No 
one can deny that this is a positive stand prompted by the desire 
to reach agreement on general and complete disarmament as soon 
as possible. 

Yet all the efforts made by the Soviet Union and other social- 
ist states to have the Ten Nation Committee act in accordance 
with the General Assembly resolution and take up the task of a 
practical solution of the problem of general and complete dis- 
armament ran, as it were, against a stone wall of opposition on 
the part of the United States and other Western powers. Our 
partners in the negotiations stubbornly refused to start the elabo- 
ration of a treaty on general and complete disarmament and in 
every way dodged a discussion of the substance of the Soviet pro- 
gramme of general and complete disarmament. For the outside 
world they say "yes" on disarmament questions, but when it comes 
to the consideration of the disarmament question as such, they 
make every effort to prevent agreement on disarmament. 

The United States of America for its part made proposals 
which provided for neither general, nor complete disarmament, 
nor any disarmament at all, but only measles of control over 
armaments, which is in fact, tantamount to control without dis- 
armament. This wholly applies to the so-called "western plan" of 


March 16, 1960 and the so-called "new" American proposals which 
were put forward by the United States when the Ten Nation 
Committee had already suspended its work. 

What then did the Western powers propose? They proposed 
control over rockets, control over satellites, control over atomic 
industry, control over the deployment of armed forces, financial 
control, ground control, control by means of aerial photography— 
and all this with the states retaining all their armed forces and 
armaments including nuclear weapons and all means of their 
delivery to the target. The question, when framed in such a way, 
may be of interest to those who while hatching military gambles 
are concerned about collecting secret information on the armed 
forces and armaments of other states, but has nothing to do with 
disarmament. One cannot but see that the establishment of con- 
trol without disarmament would not only fail to contribute to 
the consolidation of peace but would on the contrary make it 
easier for a potential aggressor to realize his plans which present 
danger for the peoples. 

But the Western powers in the Ten Nation Committee did 
not wish to discuss anything except control without disarmament. 
As the only specific measure for the first stage, beyond control, 
they proposed that the strength of the armed forces of the USA 
and the USSR be limited to the level of 2,500,000 men though it 
is known that this is precisely the present strength of the United 
States armed forces whereas the Soviet armed forces will number 
2,423,000 men on the completion of a unilateral reduction by one 
third, i.e. even less than proposed by the Western powers. Then 
why was the proposal about the levels of 2,500,000 men made 
at all? 

It is difficult to evaluate this attitude otherwise than as the 
unwillingness of the Western powers to agree to disarmament. 

Not only did the Western powers reject a businesslike dis- 
cussion in the Ten Nation Committee of the Soviet programme 
of general and complete disarmament, not only did they put for- 
ward no proposals of their own which would accord with the 
demands of the resolution of the General Assembly on general 
and complete disarmament, but they even went back on their 
own proposals as soon as they were accepted by the Soviet Union. 

It has to be stated, for instance, that though France put 


forward a proposal to begin disarmament with the elimination 
of the means of delivery of nuclear weapons to the target, its 

representative in the Committee of ten in fact took the line of 
abandoning this proposal as soon as it was accepted by the Soviet 
Union, and began advocating not the elimination of the means 
of delivery but only control over them. One need not be a special- 
ist to understand the difference in principle between the elimina- 
tion, destruction of rockets, military aircraft, warships and other 
means of delivering nuclear weapons to their target, and the 
establishment of control over them. 

The fact that the French Government changed its view as 
regards giving priority to the elimination of the means of deliv- 
ery of nuclear weapons to the target is all the more incompre- 
hensible since it is well known that in rocketry, that is in the 
most advanced means of delivery, France is far from being the 
first. The time is not far off when she can be outstripped even 
by West Germany which the Pentagon intends to supply with 
strategic rockets. Consequently, if agreement were reached on 
the elimination of the means of delivery of nuclear weapons to 
the target, France, far from standing to lose, would on the con- 
trary, gain inasmuch as she would be on a par with the other 
powers which are ahead of her now as far as the means of delivery 
are concerned. There arises a legitimate question: are not NATO 
commitments more important for France than the settlement of 
the disarmament problem? 

It is obvious that with the USA and its allies taking a nega- 
tive stand as regards general and complete disarmament, the Ten 
Nation Committee was not able to do any fruitful work towards 
the implementation of the resolution of the General Assembly. 
Moreover, from a body for negotiation on disarmament it began 
to turn into its exact opposite: an instrument covering up the 
continuation of the arms race. 

Suffice it to say that while the Ten Nation Committee was 
holding talks on disarmament, military appropriations continued 
to grow in the United States, the construction of American 
nuclear-rocket bases was stepped up in Britain, Italy and a num- 
ber of other states, a new military treaty with the USA was im- 
posed on Japan against the will of her people; preparations began 
for supplying the West German revenge seekers and militarists 


with "Polaris' 'strategic nuclear rockets, and steps were taken to ex- 
pand the production of chemical and bacteriological weapons of 
mass extermination. In other Western countries— members of 
NATO— the arms race was given a new impetus as well. 

All that was being carried out with the Ten Nation Com- 
mittee being used as a screen. On the one hand, the arms race 
was being stepped up, war preparations on an ever growing scale 
were going on at a feverish pace, and on the other, allegations 
were being made in the Ten Nation Committee about a desire 
for disarmament, for continued negotiations. It was becoming more 
and more apparent that the USA and its NATO allies sought, as 
before, to drown the disarmament problem in futile disputes. 

Under the circumstances, the Soviet Union and other socialist 
states found themselves faced with the problem of whether there 
was any sense at all in the further work o£ the Committee. After 
giving due consideration to the situation that was created through 
the fault of the USA and its allies the Soviet Government could 
not but draw the conclusion that it was necessary to interrupt its 
participation in the work of the Ten Nation Committee and to 
raise the question of the necessity of considering the disarmament 
problem at the General Assembly. The same conclusion was ar- 
rived at by the other socialist states— members of the Committee. 

It was not easy for the Soviet Government to make such a 
decision, for it was precisely the Soviet Government that had put 
forward a programme of general and complete disarmament, it 
was the Soviet Government that sought to display maximum flexi- 
bility in the course of the negotiations and worked persistently 
for the negotiations to be effective and to make progress. Not- 
withstanding all this, it had to take this step. To do otherwise 
would be helping those who do not want disarmament, those who 
are still pushing the world to wax. 

Now that the United States and its allies have brought the 
disarmament negotiations in the Ten Nation Committee to an 
impasse, the General Assembly should give the present situation 
due consideration and take appropriate measures with a view to 
removing all obstacles in the way of solving the disarmament 
problem. To achieve this it is necessary to declare bluntly and 
plainly on behalf of all the states of the world to those who 
hamper the negotiations on disarmament: 



It is high time to put an end to maneuvering^ and delays, 
the solution of the disarmament problem cannot be postponed 
any longer, the elaboration of a treaty on general and complete 
disarmament cannot be put off any more! 

To expedite the solution of the disarmament problem the 
Soviet Government is submitting to the General Assembly its 
proposal entitled "Basic provisions of a treaty on general and 
complete disarmament" which is appended to this statement. The 
Soviet Government believes that this proposal provides a good 
basis for the elaboration and conclusion of a treaty on general 
and complete disarmament. In this proposal the Soviet Govern- 
ment is going still further to meet the Western powers and takes 
into account their attitude on some major points including their 
pronouncements that it would be advisable, beginning with the 
first stage, to couple measures for nuclear disarmament with meas- 
ures to reduce armed forces and conventional armaments. To this 
end the Soviet Government proposes that a substantial reduction 
of armed forces and conventional armaments should be provided 
for as early as in the first stage. 

What is the essence of the Soviet proposal? 
The Soviet Government proposes that within four years or 
any other agreed period all states should carry out in three subse- 
quent stages the complete and final elimination of all their armed 
forces and armaments. At the same time all measures for disarm- 
ament must be strictly controlled so that not a single state could 
shirk the fulfillment of its obligations under the treaty on general 
and complete disarmament and consequently, so that none of 
them could take advantage of the elimination of the armed forces 
and armaments of other states for aggressive purposes. 

In the first stage which is to last for about a year or a year 
and a half manufacture of the means of delivery of nuclear weap- 
ons to the target must be stopped and the existing stockpiles 
destroyed. In the first stage, too, all foreign military bases on the 
territories of other states must be dismantled and all foreign 
troops withdrawn from such territories. The strength of armed 
forces of states must be substantially reduced, with the maximum 
strength of the armed forces of the USSR ^id the USA being 
established at the level of 1,700,000 men. Conventional armaments 
must be reduced accordingly. 


The implementation of all these measures would mean that 
in a year or a year and a half after the disarmament treaty be- 
comes effective not a single state would have at its disposal mili- 
tary rockets or military aircraft capable of carrying atomic and 
hydrogen bombs, or warships equipped for this purpose, or any 
other means which could be used for delivering nuclear warheads 
to their destination. 

Not a single foreign military base— rocket, air, naval or any 
other—would remain on the territories of states. All foreign troops 
would be withdrawn from the territories of other states whether 
or not they are occupation troops or stationed at present on for- 
eign territories in accordance with some agreement. The armed 
forces and conventional armaments of states would be consider- 
ably reduced. It would be no exaggeration to say that were all 
these disarmament measures carried out, the world would heave 
a sigh of relief since the arms race would be stopped, the danger 
of a surprise nuclear attack by one state on another would be 
eliminated and, in general, the threat of a sudden outbreak of 
war would be considerably reduced. All this is, of course, bound 
to have a beneficial effect on the international situation as a 

However, the implementation of the disarmament measures 
proposed by the Soviet Government for the first stage would not 
as yet entirely remove the threat of war. Even after that the states 
would still retain nuclear and other weapons of mass extermina- 
tion. But without the means of delivery nuclear weapons cannot 
be used to harm other states. Therefore the means of delivery 
must be destroyed and control must be established to prevent 
their manufacture. The states would still have considerable armed 
forces and conventional armaments. In other words, the states 
would still maintain means of unleashing war. 

Therefore, the Soviet Government proposes that immediately 
following the completion of the measures of the first stage that 
are to be carried out from beginning to end under strict inter- 
national control, and after the International control organ and 
the Security Council satisfy themselves that all the states have 
fulfilled their obligations for the first stage, the states should 
proceed to the realization of other large-scale disarmament meas- 
ures comprising the second stage. 


In the second stage the Soviet Government proposes, among 
other measures, the complete prohibition of nuclear, chemical, 
biological and other kinds of weapons of mass extermination as 
well as discontinuance of their manufacture and destruction of 
the existing stockpiles of such weapons, and further reduction of 
the armed forces of states alongside the appropriate reduction of 
armaments and war material. 

The implementation of these large-scale measures would 
mean that there would be no more weapons of mass extermina- 
tion left in the world, while armed forces and conventional arma- 
ments would be substantially reduced. Obviously, this would re- 
duce to a minimum the possibility of war flaring up between states. 

Nevertheless, even this is not as yet a complete and final 
solution of the problem now facing humanity. If the states retain 
armed forces-even though on a limited scale-it will mean that 
the danger of war has not yet been ruled out from the life of 
human society. But if so, how can one be sure that the arms race 
will not start again and the world will not return, in the long 
run, to the present state of affairs? 

The Soviet Government believes that in the third stage it 
will be necessary to go still further and complete the elimination 
of the armed forces and armaments of all states, stop war produc- 
tion, abolish war ministries, general staffs, and military and para- 
military institutions and organizations of every kind as well as 
to stop appropriating funds for military purposes. 

On the consummation of the third stage of general and com- 
plete disarmament the states would have neither soldiers, nor 
weapons any longer, and the danger of war would be consequent- 
ly eliminated once and for all. Then the centuries-old dream of 
humanity— a world free of arms, free of wars-would come true. 

As to the internal security of states it would be ensured by 
strictly limited and agreed contingents of police or militia. In 
case of need states would place such contingents at the disposal ot 
the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of world 

These are the major points of the Soviet proposal "Basic pro- 
visions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament." 

The Soviet Government expects that the members of the 
United Nations will consider the proposal "Basic provisions of a 


treaty on general and complete disarmament" with all seriousness 
and responsibility. The Soviet Government expresses the hope 
that the discussion of this proposal at the General Assembly will 
make it possible to proceed without delay to the practical solu- 
tion of the disarmament problem and will provide a more specific 
line for the solution of this problem during negotiations in an 
appropriate working organ. As to the composition of such a work- 
ing body it appears necessary that besides states belonging to the 
existing military blocs, wider opportunities in considering the 
disarmament question should also be given to states adhering to 
neutral positions. It should also be desirable that the main areas 
of the world should be represented in such a disarmament body. 

The Soviet Government realizes that the working out of a 
treaty on general and complete disarmament will require patience, 
mutual regard for the interests of the parties and flexibility on 
the part of all the participants in the negotiations. The Soviet 
Government, as before, is ready for such negotiations. It is aware 
that the peoples of the world, anxious for the radical solution of 
the disarmament problem are eagerly waiting for practical meas- 
ures for general and complete disarmament to be initiated as soon 
as possible. 

Of course, an important step ensuring the success of the 
negotiations on disarmament would be the re-establishment of 
the legitimate rights of the Chinese People's Republic in the 
United Nations. Thereby the great China would become a party 
to the negotiations on the disarmament question. 

The peoples of the world persistently demand a prompt solu- 
tion of the disarmament problem. They expect that the United 
Nations General Assembly will speak out with authority on this 
vital problem. 

Goodwill and determination are required for the solution of 
the disarmament problem. It is from these positions that the 
Soviet Government urges all members of the United Nations to 
approach the consideration of the disarmament problem, the most 
burning and pressing problem of today. 

September 23, 1960 

N. S. Khrushchev 

Chairman of the USSR Council 
of Ministers 


September 23, I960 

Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and 
Complete Disarmament 

Proposals of the Soviet Government submitted to the 
Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General As- 
sembly by N. S. Khrushchev, Head of the USSR 
Delegation, Chairman of the Council of Ministers 
of the USSR 

The Governments of the States participating in negotiations 
on disarmament, guided by the resolution on "General and com- 
plete disarmament" adopted by the General Assembly of the 
United Nations at its fourteenth session on 20 November, 1959, 
in the interests of saving mankind from the threat of a new war, 
and in the interests of securing lasting and inviolable peace on 
earth, recognize the need to proceed forthwith to the practical 
accomplishment of the task of general and complete disarmament, 
and have to this end resolved to draw up a treaty on general and 
complete disarmament, which will include the following basic 

I. General and complete disarmament entails: 

—the disbanding of all armed forces of States and the pro- 
hibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsover; 

—the prohibition and destruction of all stockpiles, and the 
cessation of the manufacture of all kinds of armaments, includ- 
ing atomic, hydrogen, chemical, biological and other types of 
weapons of mass destruction; 

—the destruction of all means of delivering weapons of mass 
destruction to their targets; 

—the liquidation of all kinds of military hases, and the with- 
drawal and disbanding of all foreign troops stationed in the ter- 
ritory of any State; 


—the abolition of any kind of military conscription for 

—the termination of universal military training and the clo- 
sure of all military education institutions; 

—the abolition of war ministries, of general staffs and their 
local agencies, and of all other military and paramilitary estab- 
lishments and organizations; 

—the discontinuance of the appropriation of funds for mili- 
tary purposes whether from State budgets or from public organi- 
zations or private individuals. 

When general and complete disarmament has been achieved, 
States will have at their disposal only strictly limited contingents 
of police (militia), the size of which will be agreed upon for each 
country and which will be equipped with light firearms, for main- 
taining internal order and ensuring the personal security of 

II. General and complete disarmament shall be carried out 
by all States over one and the same strictly defined period of time 
to be agreed upon, the process of disarmament being carried out 
gradually, in three consecutive stages, bearing in mind that at no 
stage shall any State gain military advantages over other States 
as a result of the course of disarmament. 

To consider the question of the adherence of other States to 
the agreement on general and complete disarmament a confer- 
ence will be convened with all countries participating. 

III. All disarmament measures, from beginning to end, will 
be carried out under strict and effective international control as 

a) Immediately after the signing of the treaty a preparatory 

commission will be set up, with the task of taking practical steps 
to establish an international organization for the control of gen- 
eral and complete disarmament. 

b) The control organization will be set up within the frame- 
work of the United Nations the moment the treaty comes into 
force. It will comprise all States, Parties to the treaty whose rep- 
resentatives will meet periodically as a conference to consider 


matters arising out o£ the implementation of effective control over 
disarmament. The conference will elect a Control Council, con- 
sisting of permanent and non-permanent members, which will 
have its own local organs. The Control Council will consist of 
representatives of socialist countries, of representatives of States 
now members of Western military and political alliances, and of 
representatives of neutral States. Except where otherwise espe- 
cially agreed upon, decisions in the Control Council will be taken 
by a two-thirds' majority of votes on substantive matters and by a 
simple majority of votes on procedural matters. 

c) The Control Council will be responsible for the practical 
administration of the control system, will draw up instructions, 
and will in good time analyze and process the reports rendered 
to it. States will submit to the Control Council information about 
their armed forces and armaments. 

d) In all countries Parties to the agreements the control 
organization will have its own staff, recruited internationally with 
due regard for the principle of equitable geographical distribu- 
tion, and in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. The 
control organization will distribute its inspectors over the terri- 
tory of States in such a way as to enable them to start discharging 
their functions the moment States initiate the implementation of 
disarmament measures. Each Party to the treaty will undertake 
to give the inspection teams timely and unrestricted access within 
its territory to any place where disarmament measures subject to 
verification are being carried out or to any area in which on-the- 
spot inspection of such measures is to be made. To these ends, 
each Party to the treaty will, for the account of the control organi- 
zation, make available to the staff of the control organization all 
means of transport needed for travel within its territory. 

e) The staff of the control organization will enjoy in the 
territory of each party to the treaty such privileges and immuni- 
ties as may be necessary for exercising independent and unre- 
stricted control over the implementation of the disarmament 

f) International inspection teams will include experts in the 
type of units to be disbanded and the types of weapons to be 


g) The inspectors will communicate with the Control Council 
through existing channels of communication, being given such 
privileges as will ensure the prompt delivery of reports and in- 

h) All the expenses of the international control organization 
will be met by the States Parties to the treaty. The scale of con- 
tributions of States will be laid down in the text of the treaty on 
general and complete disarmament. 

The control organization shall at each stage have powers in 
conformity with the scope and nature of disarmament measures 

The basic disarmament measures will be spread over the 
three stages of the programme of general and complete disarma- 
ment in the following way: 

First Stage 

1. All means of delivering nuclear weapons will be elimi- 
nated from the armed forces of States; their manufacture will be 
discontinued and they will be destroyed. Such means include: 

—strategic and tactical rockets, pilotless aircraft of all types, 
and all military aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons; 

—surface warships that can be used as vehicles for nuclear 

—submarines of all classes and types; 

—all artillery systems, as well as other means, that can be used 
as vehicles for atomic and hydrogen weapons. 

2- The armed forces of all States will be reduced to fixed 
levels, those of the United States of America and the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics being reduced to a maximum level of 
1,7 million men. Conventional weapons and munitions thus re- 
leased are to be destroyed, and military equipment either de- 
stroyed or used for peaceful purposes. Military expenditures of 
States will be reduced correspondingly. 

3. All troops will be withdrawn from foreign territories to 
within their own national frontiers. Foreign military bases and 
depots of all kinds, both those released after the withdrawal of 
troops and those kept in reserve, will be eliminated. 


4. From the very beginning of the first stage and until the 
final destruction of all means of delivering nuclear weapons, the 
placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of any special de- 
vices, the leaving of their territorial waters by warships and the 
flying beyond the limits of their national territory by military 
aircraft capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction,, will be 

5. The launching of rockets will be carried out exclusively 
for scientific peaceful purposes and in accordance with predeter- 
mined and mutually agreed criteria, and will be accompanied by 
agreed measures of verification, including inspection at the rocket 
launching sites. 

6. States having nuclear weapons at their disposal will un- 
dertake not to transfer such weapons, or to transmit information 
necessary for their manufacture, to States which do not possess 
them. At the same time, States not possessing nuclear weapons will 
undertake to refrain from manufacturing them. 

7. States will reduce their military expenditures correspond- 

8. The following control measures will be carried out during 
the first stage: 

On-site international control will be established over the de- 
struction of rocket weapons, military aircraft, surface warships, 
submarines and other means which can be used as vehicles for 
atomic and hydrogen weapons. 

International inspection teams will be dispatched to places 
where military bases are situated and troops stationed on foreign 
territories, in order to supervise the elimination of the said bases 
and the withdrawal of military personnel and troops to within 
their own national territories; control will also be established at 
airfields and ports, to ensure that they are not used for military 
purposes. At the same time, rocket launching sites, with the ex- 
ception of those maintained for scientific peaceful purposes, will 
be destroyed under the supervision of the international control 

The control organization will have the right to inspect with- 
out hindrance all enterprises, plants, factories and shipyards, pre- 
viously engaged wholly or in part in the production of rockets, 


aircraft, surface warships, submarines and any other means of de- 
livering nuclear weapons, in order to prevent the organization of 
clandestine production of armaments which can be used as ve- 
hicles for atomic and hydrogen weapons. By agreement, perma- 
nent control teams may be established at some plants and installa- 

There will be on-site international control over the disband- 
ing of troops and the destruction of armaments. 

The duties of inspectors will include: 

Supervision of precise and punctual compliance with deci- 
sions on the disbanding of military formations and units, elimi- 
nation and destruction of the material of conventional arma- 
ments, military equipment and munitions; 

Reporting to the Control Council and to the Government of 
the host country. 

The control organization will have unhindered access to 
documents pertaining to the budgetary allocations of States for 
military purposes, including all relevant decisions of legislative 
and executive bodies of States. 

International inspection teams dispatched by the control or- 
ganization will have the right to carry out a thorough examina- 
tion of rocket devices to be launched for peaceful scientific pur- 
poses, and to be present at their launching. 

9. In the first stage joint studies will be undertaken of the 
measures to be implemented in the second stage relating to the 
discontinuance of the manufacture of nuclear, chemical and 
biological weapons and to the destruction of stockpiles of such 

10. The first stage is to be completed within approximately 
1-1.5 years. The international control organization will review the 
results of the carrying out of the first-stage measures with a view 
to reporting on them to the States Parties to the treaty as well 
as to the Security Council and the General Assembly of the 
United Nations. 

Second Stage 

1. There will be a complete prohibition of nuclear, chemical 
biological and other weapons of mass destruction, with the cessa- 


tion of manufacture and the destruction of all stockpiles of such 

2. Further reduction of armed forces and armaments will be 
carried out to the levels to be agreed. Military expenditures of 
States will be reduced correspondingly. 

3. The following control measures will be carried out during 
the second stage: 

Representatives of the control organizations will conduct the 
on-site inspection of the destruction of all existing stockpiles of 
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The control organiza- 
tion will have the right to inspect all enterprises which extract 
raw materials for atomic production or which produce or use 
fissionable materials or atomic energy. By agreement, permanent 
control teams may be established at some plants and installations. 

On-site international control over the disbanding of troops 
and the destruction of armaments will be continued. 

4. In the second stage joint studies will be undertaken of 
the following measures to be implemented in the third stage: 

a) measures to ensure observance of the treaty on general and 
complete disarmament after the implementation of all the meas- 
ures provided for by that treaty; 

b) measures to maintain peace and security in accordance 
with the United Nations Charter under conditions of general and 
complete disarmament. 

5. As in the case of the transition from the first to the second 
stage, the international control organization will review the re- 
sults of the carrying out of the second-stage measures with a view 
to reporting them to the States Parties to the treaty, as well as to 
the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United 

Third Stage 

1. The abolition of the armed forces of all States will be 
completed. States will have at their disposal only strictly limited 
contingents of police (militia), the size of which will be agreed 
upon for each country, and which will be equipped with light 
firearms, for maintaining internal order and ensuring the per- 
sonal security of citizens. 


2. All remaining types of conventional armaments and am- 
munition, whether held by the armed forces or in depots, will be 
destroyed, and military equipment will either be destroyed or be 
put to peaceful uses. 

3. Military production at all factories will be terminated in- 
cluding the manufacture of conventional armaments, with the 
exception of strictly limited production of light firearms intended 
for the use of the contingents of police (militia) retained by States 
after the end of the programme of general and complete disarma- 

4. War ministries, general staffs and all military and para- 
military establishments and organizations will be abolished. All 
military courses for reservists will be terminated. In accordance 
with their respective constitutional procedures, States will enact 
legislation prohibiting the military training of young persons and 
abolishing military service in all its forms. 

5. The appropriation of funds for military purposes in any 
form, whether from State bodies, from private individuals or 
from public organizations, will be discontinued. The funds re- 
leased as a result of the achievement of general and complete' 
disarmament will be used to reduce or to do away entirely with 
taxes on the public, to subsidize the national economy and to 
furnish economic and technical assistance to the underdeveloped 

6. At the third stage, the following additional control meas- 
ures will be introduced: 

The international control organization will send inspectors 
to verify on the spot the abolition of war ministries, general staff's 
and all military and paramilitary establishments and organiza- 
tions, and the termination of military training and all other forms 
of military activity. 

Control will be established over the discontinuance of the 
appropriation of funds for military purposes. 

The control organization may, where necessary, institute a 
system of aerial inspection and aerial photography over the terri- 
tory of States. 

7. After the programme of general and complete disarma- 
ment has been carried out, the control organization will be kept 


in being to maintain constant supervision over the implementa- 
tion by States of the obligations they have assumed. The Control 
Council will have the right to send mobile inspection teams to 
any point or to any establishment in the territory of States. 

States will provide the control organization with information 
about the points at which the contingents of police (militia) are 
stationed, about their strength at every such point (area) and 
about any movements of substantial contingents of police (militia) 
near State frontiers. International inspection teams will carry out 
comprehensive control to ensure that the strength of the police 
(militia) and their armament are in conformity with the quota 
agreed upon for each country. 

8. Other measures designed to ensure compliance with the 
treaty on complete disarmament will come into force. 

9. Measures for preserving peace and security in accordance 
with the Charter of the United Nations will be put into effect. 
States will undertake, where necessary, to place at the disposal 
of the Security Council units from the contingents of the police 
(militia) remaining at their disposal. 

As the implementation of the disarmament programme and 
the reduction of military expenditure of States proceeds, part of 
the funds thus released will be used to give economic assistance 
to underdeveloped countries. 


September 23, I960 

Declaration on Granting Independence 
To Colonial Countries and Peoples 

Submitted by the Head of the USSR Delegation 

N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the USSR Council of 

Ministers, for consideration by the Fifteenth Session 

of the UA T General Assembly 

The states that set up the United Nations Organization laid 
in the basis of its Charter the lofty and humane ideals of equality 
and self-determination of nations and peoples. 

Born in die period of victorious completion of the Second 
World War the United Nations embodied the hopes that inequal- 
ity and enslavement of some nations and peoples by others would 
disappear along with the barbarity and cruelty of fascism and mil- 
itarism. But not all the hopes of the peoples came true. Still un- 
solved is such a vital problem of our time as complete deliverance 
of mankind from the shameful colonial order inherited from the 

Ours is the era of swift renovation of society, the era of 
establishing more progressive and just forms of life, of the upsurge 
of unprecedented triumph of man over the forces of nature. 
The time has come for complete and final liberation of peoples 
languishing in colonial bondage. Therefore the member states of 
the United Nations solemnly declare their convictions, intentions 
and demands for granting independence to colonial countries 
and peoples. 

The peoples that oppress other peoples cannot be free. Each 
free nation should help in winning freedom and independence 
for the peoples that are still oppressed. 

Great Revival of Enslaved Nations 

Rapid liberation and emancipation of countries and peoples 
is a significant event of our time. Even during the lifetime of 


the present generation two thirds of the world's population were 
living under conditions of colonial rule. At the end of the First 
World War the chains of colonial subjugation and oppression 
of nations were broken in a number of countries. The banner of 
national independence raised high over the world has become 
now the banner of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people 
in all continents of the globe. The time has come for the liberation 
and revival of nations, peoples and tribes which were but re- 
cently oppressed and downtrodden. Tens of new states have joined 
the family of independent countries. The democratic ideas of 
equality and self-determination of nations are being translated 
into reality. 

The myth of inability of colonial peoples to rule and to 
create material values is reduced to ashes. 

No one can say now that the peoples of Asia, Africa, Latin 
America cannot govern themselves. Gigantic forces awoke for the 
construction of a new independent life, and their spirits rose. Now 
the solution of international matters is inconceivable without 
the participation of People's China, without the participation 
of the liberated peoples of India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon, the 
United Arab Republic, Iraq, Ghana, Guinea and other states, 
big and small. 

Today no one can say that the liberation of nations and peo- 
ples that were under the yoke of colonialism in the past will bring 
about the extension of the zone of conflicts and clashes between 
countries. On the contrary, national liberation has led to the 
extension of the zone of peace while the colonial oppression and 
colonial policy have led and will lead to wars. 

Today no one can assert that the liberation of nations would 
lead to the depression of economy, trade, crafts or agriculture. 
On the contrary, experience shows that it is the political libera- 
tion of colonial nations and the establishment of new independent 
states that open the way for a genuine upsurge of the national 

Now no one will dare to assert that the liberation of nations 
from the colonial yoke would lead to a decline of culture. Life 
shows that immediately after the liberation follows the revival, 
uplift and flourishing of original national cultures, expansion 


of public education, improvement of health service, training of 
skilled national cadres: the possibilities of enriching world culture 
are rising. 

Not only the peoples of the East are gaining from the liber- 
ation of previously oppressed nations but the peoples of the West 
as well. The cause of freedom of peoples, their equal relations, 
the preservation of peace in the world is being placed on a more 
solid foundation. 

But the liquidation of colonial regimes is yet to be completed. 

The member states of the United Nations cannot remain in- 
different when over one hundred million people still languish 
in colonial subjugation in the ancient lands of Africa and Asia, 
on the islands of Oceania, on the islands of the Caribbean and 
in other places. The peoples of these countries have the right to 
national independence but nevertheless they are still deprived of 
rights, remain in the stocks. Violence and lawlessness continue to 
reign in these countries, the major law there being profit for for- 
eigners whose interest is all; the inherent rights of man and peoples 
are nothing. The bossing by foreign administrators who despise 
and loot local populations; persecution of tribes, derision of na- 
tional customs, inequality for indigenous populations, shameful 
disregard of their vital interests, degrading of national and human 
dignity give rise to deep indignation in every honest person. 

The lash of the overseer swishes there, the hatchet of the 
executioner cuts heads off. 

The peoples of the colonies do not want to live in slave con- 
ditions, they are fighting for their rights and independence, for 
everything that other nations enjoy. However, selfish interests of 
the imperialist circles in the West stand in their way and hinder 
tire realization of the just aspirations of peoples. Colonial wars, 
punitive expeditions, open looting of peoples by monopolies, 
military tribunals and secret trials, reservations, color bar, prisons 
and concentration camps — these are some methods with which 
overt and covert colonialists try to strangle all independent and 
nationalistic life in colonial countries. 

The Conference of African Nations in Accra justly branded 
all this as colonial fascism. 

Those who stand for the preservation of the old colonial 


rule still hope for severe measures of retribution in the colonies. 
Of course, such measures are hampering liberation. But does not 
life follow its course? Did the cruel reprisals carried out through- 
out decades stop the liberation of Indonesia? Did the massacre 
of tens and hundreds of thousands of people of Indo-China save the 
colonial rule there? Gould the crimes committed now against 
the peoples of Africa stop the irresistible process of the liberation 
of African nations? 

No forces of oppression and despotism can save a colonial 
order that has lived its life. And about those that were killed on 
the path to freedom one cannot say that they are dead, no, they 
are alive in the memory of peoples, they will live eternally as 
heroes of national liberation struggle. 

Colonialism is in its agony. But in the last minute of its life 
it can bring about many sufferings and victims, ruin many lives in 
colonies and metropolises, destroy much wealth created by the 
labor of many generations. 

The United Nations appeals to all peoples on earth and to 
all governments not to remain indifferent observers of the suffer- 
ing of colonial peoples. Gan one turn a deaf ear to the moans of 
the people of Kenya where for eight years the colonial authorities 
have continued to exterminate the local population driven into 
reservations, prisons and concentration camps, to the sufferings of 
the people of the Oman against whom aggressive war is being 
waged? Who can remain calm seeing unending carnage of the 
population of Nyasaland, Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, Ruan- 
da-Urundi, South West Africa, Tanganyika, Uganda? 

It is an intolerable situation in our time, in an age of progress 
and outstanding discoveries of scientific genius, boundless expan- 
sion of the power of man over the forces of nature, for France to 
wage colonial war in Algeria with the use of aviation, artillery, 
tanks and napalm bombs and other means of mass extermination 
against the Algerians who have been for nearly six years fighting 
with selfless courage for the freedom and independence of their 
motherland. Hundreds of thousands of Algerians have been killed, 
many Algerian towns and villages burned dowri. and destroyed, a 
fifth of the country's population driven to concentration camps. 
Dying for this unjust cause are many sons of France. 


Can such a situation be tolerated any longer? No, it cannot, 
if the interests of the great cause of peace, the interests of humanity 
and progress are to be cherished. 

In what name do those who do not want to part with the 
colonial rule wage murderous wars against the peoples? Why are 
the freedom-loving aspirations of the enslaved peoples suppressed? 
Sometimes it is said that this is done in the interests of "civiliza- 
tion" of the less developed countries in order to prepare them 
for self-government. 

But this is a lie given the shape of truth. 

What civilization has been brought as a result of five cen- 
turies of the tyrannic colonial rule to the African countries of 
Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea whose area is more 
than half of Western Europe and who have a population of eleven 
million people? They have brought misery and lawlessness, force- 
ful deprivation of the lands which have been watered with sweat 
of many a generation, expulsion of farmers into barren and 
drought-ridden regions. 

Arbitrary rule, famine, ignorance and disease rage there, 
slavery and forced labor are actually in existence there. There 
is not a single establishment of higher education; secondary edu- 
cation is almost completely lacking. 

Why can Portugal exercise such lawlessness in the colonies 
in our time? On what grounds? 

During half a century of Belgian colonial domination the 
Congo's population decreased more than twice from punitive 
expeditions, starvation and disease. At the moment of the proc- 
lamation of the independence of the Republic of the Congo only 
few of its citizens could read and write. 

The situation in other African colonies is no better in any 

Of course, in some regions of the colonies roads, airfields, 
ports, mines, a few schools have been built. But all this serves 
the purposes of exploitation of the native population and of loot- 
ing the natural wealth of the colonies. 

The assertion that the colonial rule is necessary in order to 
prevent strife, fratricidal wars of tribes and peoples in colonies 
is a deliberate lie also. Developments in the Congo show that 


colonialism thrives on the use of discord and the artificial rousing 
o£ differences between tribes and peoples. It tries to weaken their 
common struggle for liberation. The motto of the colonialists is, 
as ever, "divide and rule I " 

What is inscribed on the colors of the peoples of Asia and 
Africa who are fighting for their national freedom and independ- 
ence? Inscribed on them are the slogans of peace and unity of 
Bandung and Accra. 

Being indifferent to the voice of justice, the colonialists are 
trying to preserve the arbitrarily drawn frontiers parting peoples 
and tribes as well as economic regions in Africa gravitating to each 
other, to disrupt the unity and the territorial integrity of many 

Independence for Colonial Countries and 
Peoples is the Call of the Time 

The United Nations appeals to peoples and governments ir- 
respective of where their motherland may be — in the East or 
West, in the North or South — to raise the question prompted 
today by life itself: does a completely decayed colonial rule meet 
the ideals of the peoples and the possibilities of the present age? 

One has only to compare the development for the past century 
of the independent countries of Europe or North America and 
the development of colonial countries in Africa to see clearly 
that the path of colonialism is the path of regression, the path of 
slow dying, destruction and degradation of the forcefully enslaved 

At a time when industry, transport, agriculture, science and 
culture have reached a high level in the economically developed 
countries, when vessels propelled by atomic energy have appeared, 
and artificial celestial bodies have been launched into the cosmos, 
Africa, the land of fantastic riches, has been retarded and turned 
into a continent of famine; the main implements of its agriculture, 
as thousands of years ago, are mattock, wooden plough and sharp- 
ened stakes; the primitive system of agriculture prevails which 
results in exhaustion and erosion of the soil. 4 

Indeed, an abyss gapes now between the independent states 
with highly developed industries and the colonial countries, while 


once Asia and Africa were the cradles of great civilizations which 
enriched the culture and civilization of other peoples. 

It is obvious that the main purpose of the colonial regime is 
to gain enormous profits for big foreign monopolies which have 
seized the key economic positions in colonies, the extortion by 
all ways and means of wealth and material values. Therefore, the 
entire economy of the colonies is that of exploitation. Having been 
subjugated first of all to the narrow interests and needs of the 
markets of different, industrially more developed countries, it is 
advancing slowly in a deformed, one-sided direction. 

Only after Ghana had been liberated was it recognized that 
its future lies not in the production of cocoa alone but in the 
development of modern industry with the extensive utilization 
of its large resources of hydro-electric power and the enormous 
deposits of bauxite and it is exactly this that is valuable from 
the point of view of the world's economy. 

Under the colonial regime no use could have been made also 
of enormous hydro-power resources of the Republic of the Congo, 
which by their capacity nearly equal the present output of electric 
power in all the countries of Western Europe, taken together. 
The utilization of these resources alone would not only make it 
possible to start the development of its colossal mineral wealth in 
full measure and raise the level of agriculture in the Republic of 
the Congo but would transform, in a significant measure, the whole 
of the economic outlook of the Central African countries and 
raise the well-being of its population. 

It is scientifically proved that all countries of the African 
continent as well as of other continents possess colossal and diversi- 
fied natural resources that to a great extent are not exploited as yet. 
They could be brought to the service of the peoples of these coun- 
tries and thus to the service of the whole of mankind. But the 
colonial regime deliberately preserves the economic backwardness 
of the colonies, hinders their industrialization and the sensible 
utilization of their resources. This is connected with an unprece- 
dented waste of public funds, immense losses of labor, domination 
of the parasitic monocultural way of running the economy of the 
colonial countries which is adapted to satisfy the selfish interests 
of the metropolises. 



The present level of science and technology, the latest achieve- 
ments of science, agriculture and culture makes it possible, in a 
comparatively short period, for the peoples to use this huge wealth. 
However, in order to use it, it is first of all necessary to secure 
for the peoples the right to exist independently, to eliminate 
colonial rule, to render economic aid in using this wealth. This 
will permit a rise in the standards of living of the native popu- 
lation, expansion of internal markets, doing away with present 
illiteracy, with lack of national cadres, with the domination of 
monoculture in the colonial economy. The colonial forms are 
incompatible with the solution of tasks of this kind as well as 
with the great achievements of technology which are an inalien- 
able part of modern civilization. 

The gains from the exploitation of colonies go not to the 
peoples but mainly to big foreign monopolies — billionaires. Peo- 
ples of both the East and the West have to pay a high levy to 
colonialism. Oil and coffee, rubber and cotton, copper and 
bananas, various raw materials and foodstuffs brought from col- 
onies are sold at a price scores of times as high as the price paid 
on the spot. Monopolies are robbing people twice — in the East 
when they buy and in the West when they sell colonial goods and 
raw materials. 

Moreover, they compel peoples of the colonies to keep foreign 
troops and administration in peace time, that is to pay the price 
of the chains they are put into. At the same time the monopolies 
are charging taxpayers in metropolises higher taxes for carrying 
out punitive expeditions and colonial wars, forcing the peoples 
of the metropolises as well to pay for the shackles into which 
the monopolists-colonialists put other peoples. In fact, they are 
burying on the fields of devastation the freedom of their own 
people together with the independence of other nations. Such a 
situation is in itself a heavy indictment of the colonial system. 

Meanwhile if the member states of the United Nations and 
first of all those of them, naturally, which in their time imposed 
the yoke of colonialism on many peoples, would show at least a 
minimum appreciation of the immediate needs of these peoples, 
they would find ways of meeting these needs. One of the main 
sources is the solution of the disarmament problem and curtail- 
ment of military expenditures of states. 


It is known that the member states of the military and 
colonial North Atlantic bloc alone spend on the arms race 62 bil- 
lion dollars a year. If at least half of this sum that is annually 
spent for unproductive purposes dangerous for peace were used 
for the development and uplift of African countries, for exam- 
ple, gigantic engineering and technical projects including the 
Ingui, Concure, Zanzibar and Volta plans— that is the plans for 
the construction of large hydroelectric power stations and irriga- 
tion systems, industrial enterprises and agriculture development 
schemes— then the liberated nations of Africa could build every- 
where schools, universities, hospitals, roads and carry out other 
measures which would enable them to raise agriculture to a higher 
modern level. 

At the same time if the bonds of colonialism were removed 
from African and other colonies this would facilitate the exploita- 
tion of their natural resources, increase the demand for European 
and American machinery and other industrial goods, increase the 
export of raw materials for the industry of Europe and America, 
raise the employment of the population and the utilization of 
industrial capacities, and ensure the raising of living standard 
of the peoples of industrially developed countries. 

Every honest person and every government if it really stands 
for the equality of nations, for the realization of the great aims 
and principles proclaimed in the United Nations Charter cannot 
but see that colonialism is an obsolete and shameful phenomenon 
in the life of modern society. The complete and final liquidation 
of colonialism would be a prelude not only to social progress but 
also to rapid technical progress in industry and agriculture just 
as the end of the slave trade gave a powerful impetus to the devel- 
opment of the productive forces of society. 

The liquidation of colonialism would be one of the most im- 
portant measures to reduce international tension. It is the desire 
to prevent the liberation and the national development of young 
states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that led to such armed 
conflicts and wars after the Second World War as those in Indo- 
nesia, Indo-China, Algeria, the aggression against Egypt, the foreign 
intervention in Lebanon and Jordan, the conspiracies against 
Syria, Iraq and others. And, indeed, all through the last hundred 
years most wars and armed conflicts were in one way or another 


connected with colonialism, with the struggle of big powers for 
distribution and redistribution of colonies. 

The peoples have more than once experienced the grave danger 
of colonial wars growing into a new world war. And now the inter- 
vention against the Republic of the Congo has led to an aggrava- 
tion in the international situation, has endangered peace in Africa 
and, indeed, not only in Africa. Can one forget that in the present 
conditions with nuclear and rocket weapons in existence the con- 
flagration of war started on one continent can instantly embrace 
the whole globe? 

Many of the most important points of concentration of 
international tension — in the Middle and the Far East, in Africa 
and Latin America — are to a considerable degree a result of the 
colonial policy. Colonies and other so-called "non-self-governing 
territories" are often used as military bases of foreign powers, as 
firing grounds for atomic tests. Can such a situation make people 
feel secure, relieve them of the fear of war, show a way out of 
poverty, famine and disease which are still the lot of the peoples 
of the countries which remain colonies and trusteeship territories? 

Apart from large colonies and trusteeship territories some 
powers retain as well strong points in different areas of the world, 
for example, Western Irian, Okinawa, Goa, Puerto Rico and others, 
not to mention Taiwan against which the USA has committed 
aggression, having occupied this territory of the Chinese Peo- 
ple's Republic. Why do the highly developed industrial powers 
need such bases and "possessions" on foreign territories? Is it not 
an obvious survival of the epoch of former colonial domina- 
tion? What would the Europeans or the Americans say if one or 
another Asian or African country demanded for itself strong 
points in the countries of Western Europe or North America? 

There cannot be two opinions — these bases are kept to threat- 
en the national independence and security of peoples in the neigh- 
bouring areas. As the trading stations at the dawn of colonialism 
served as a basis for the spread of colonial rule of oppression in 
Africa, Asia and America, so now, at the time of the decay of 
colonialism the imperialists are trying to use the remaining bases 
and colonies for brutal pressure on independent states of Asia, 
Africa and Latin America. 


The Shameful Colonial System Should Be Buried 

The member states of the United Nations Organization sub- 
mitting this Declaration, are of the opinion that every govern- 
ment which in deeds, and not in words is for peace and progress 
should respect the lawful rights of all nations without exception 
in their demands for equality, justice and independence. Either 
these demands will be recognized by all the states or the oppressed 
peoples with the support of their numerous friends in the world 
will take their destiny in their own hands and will gain liberty 
and independence, crushing all the artificial barriers erected in 
their way by the colonialists. The primary duty of all the nations 
is to extend a helping hand in the sacred struggle for independence 
against the yoke of the colonialists. 

Together with the infamous system of colonialism such a 
form of colonial rule as the trusteeship system has also outlived 
itself. Being an obvious remnant of the mandate system of the 
League of Nations the present trusteeship system in accordance 
with the United Nations Charter should have facilitated the devel- 
opment of the trusteeship territories toward self-government and 
independence. Fifteen years have elapsed however since the Char- 
ter was adopted, but only four out of eleven trusteeship territories 
have attained independence. 

So far no exact dates have been fixed for granting independ- 
ence to the trusteeship territories including the largest of them — 
Tanganyika, Ruanda-Urundi, New Guinea. 

The powers responsible for "trusteeship," disregarding the 
principles of the United Nations, are preserving in fact colonial 
regimes, mercilessly exploiting the population and plundering 
national resources, repressing those who appealed to the United 
Nations Organization, hampering the economic and political devel- 
opment of the trusteeship territories. 

The trusteeship system has not justified itself anywhere and 
should be buried together with the entire colonial system which is 
an anachronism. The regime of colonial oppression has left to 
man a heavy legacy in the form of numerous complicated prob- 
lems. The tragic events in the Congo as well as in some other 
parts of the world where peoples are waging the just struggle 
for their rights, demand a reasonable solution of the problem 


of relations between the indigenous population and the settlers 
who came from other continents. Racial discrimination in all its 
odious forms, i.e. division of peoples and nations into the priv- 
ileged and the "inferior" is racism, justification of criminal geno- 
cide, the way of adding new evil deeds to the evil deeds committed 
earlier, of new crimes to the crimes committed earlier, the way o£ 
fomenting mutual hatred, endless bloody conflicts between coun- 
tries and peoples. 

Different people have different skin color, but the blood they 
have is of the same color. And not a single people can lay a claim 
to domination over other peoples. 

Ties and relations between the peoples created at the time of 
colonialism should be replaced by new relations based on the 
principles of equality, friendship and mutual respect, irrespective 
of the social and political system of states, ideology and political 
views of people or the color of their skin. The peoples in colonies 
should get real independence, but not a fictitious one under which 
they would, in fact, be kept within the bounds of a modified 
colonial regime. They are demanding not only greater freedom 
within the colonial rule but the final elimination of this system, 
freedom for progress, the right to be their own masters, to make 
use of their wealth and the fruits of their labor. Every form of 
enslavement, every manifestation of "trusteeship" or "charity" 
toward peoples is a deep insult to their dignity. 

Life itself makes it imperative to choose between stagnation 
and progress, between slavery and freedom, between the division 
of the peoples and their unity, between war and peace. 

The United Nations considers it a duty to urge the powers 
that have colonial possessions to enter into negotiations on equal 
footing with representatives of the peoples of the colonies and 
reach agreement on the establishment of freedom and independ- 
ence of the colonial countries. 

Exact and early dates for negotiations should be fixed and 
any possibility of coercion or aggression on the part of the 
colonial powers should be ruled out. But should those powers 
turn a deaf ear to such an appeal, should they delay the libera- 
tion of the colonies, suppress the liberation movement of the 
colonial peoples, the peaceloving peoples should render every assist- 


ance, moral and material, to the peoples fighting for their inde- 

The member states of the United Nations proceed from the 
premise that every country, every nation has a full and inalienable 
right to independent existence. They feel confident that the elim- 
ination of the colonial regime will not mean alienation of the 
countries of Africa or Europe from one another. On the contrary, 
it will promote still greater cooperation among them. Such unity 
and cooperation, however, should be granted reciprocally and 
of free will. 

The more consistently and directly the great principles of 
international cooperation are realized— the principles of equal- 
ity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in each 
other's internal affairs, mutual benefit, peaceful co-existence and 
economic cooperation, the better will be mutual understanding 
and agreement among free and equal states of the world. 

Only thus will the countries of the West and the East, the 
North and the South march forward to progress, to genuine peace- 
ful comity of nations utilizing the great achievements of modern 
science and culture. Only thus can be translated into reality the 
high principles of the right of nations and peoples to self-deter- 
mination enunciated in the United Nations Charter. 

Moved by the ardent desire for the earliest establishment of 
mutual good will and agreement among states and peoples as 
well as between the indigenous population of the non-self-govern- 
ing territories and those who settled on such territories and wish 
to live there enjoying the same rights as those of the nationals 
of such countries, member states of the United Nations who affixed 
their signatures to this Declaration appeal to all people irrespective 
of language and race, religion and political outlook: 

Let all the people of the globe hear our words! 

We all live on one planet. On this planet we are born, we 
work, raise our children and pass on to them all we have 
achieved in life. And though there exist different states on earth, 
every person is born an equal citizen. 

The very course of historic development at present poses 
the question of complete and final elimination of colonial rule in 


all its forms and manifestations, and not some time in the distant 
future either, but immediately and unconditionally! 

In accordance with this, member states of the United Nations 
solemnly demand: 

1. To grant immediately to all colonial countries, trusteeship 
territories and other non-self-governing territories complete inde- 
pendence and freedom in the building up of their own national 
states in conformity with the freely-expressed will and desire of 
their peoples. Colonial rule, colonial administration in all its 
forms should be abolished completely so as to make it possible 
for the peoples of such territories to determine their destiny and 
form of government. 

2. To eliminate likewise all strongholds of colonialism in the 
shape of possessions and leasehold areas on the territories of other 

3. The governments of all countries are called upon to ob- 
serve strictly and consistently the provisions of the United Nations 
Charter and of this Declaration relating to equality and respect 
for sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all states without 
exception, allowing no manifestations of colonialism, no exclusive 
rights or advantages for some states to the prejudice of other states. 

« # * 

In keeping with the noble principles of the Charter of this 
Organization member states of the United Nations cannot but 
regard the elimination of colonial rule as a most important 
stage in international life. This act in itself will prove a vital 
foundation for the development of genuine friendly relations 
among all states and among all peoples and thereby for the 
realization of the great objective of securing a durable and last- 
ing peace on earth. 

The sacred duty of each State and each government is to 
promote an early and full implementation of this Declaration. 


September 23, I960 

An American Antique Dealer 
Presents Khrushchev with a Peace Pipe 

Upon Khrushchev's return to his residence after his speech 
at the UN General Assembly, he was told that an American visitor 
and his wife wished to see him to present him with a peace pipe 

"All right," said Khrushchev, "let them come along. I shall 
be pleased to see them." 

The Premier's American guests were Mr. and Mrs. Watson 
Pierce. The tall, gray-haired scholar carried in his hands an un- 
usual 200-year-old Indian peace pipe. 

In presenting the pipe to the Premier, Mr. Pierce said: 

"I am presenting this peace pipe to the Premier of the Union 
of the Soviet Socialist Republics. My colleagues at Archaeologi- 
cal Artifacts and Antiques and I look upon this pipe as a symbol 
which the Indians of the Black Foot tribe used to mark an end 
to tomahawks and wars on the great plains of America. Our 
ancestors thought that they belonged to different nations. They 
fought, were frightened, and again fought until they found that 
they could expel the spirit of sorrow by quietly chatting as thev 
sat round the campfire. The pipe was then passed from hand to 
hand. Smoke curled. And they became blood brothers and e-ood 
neighbors in the human community. 

"May A- and H-bombs and other weapons no longer frighten 
the men, women, and children of the world. When they talk 
may the leaders of our two great powers, the USSR and the USA* 
see in this pipe a new age for the recently recognized African 
nations and for all other countries assuming the full respon- 
sibility for the establishment of a fair and desirable peace. 

"Mr. Prime Minister, now this pipe is yours. And may you 
and the heads of other states symbolically smoke it together." 


Accepting the pipe, Khrushchev thanked Mr. and Mrs, Pierce. 
"May I tender my heartfelt thanks to you and your wife for 
this symbolic souvenir, for this present. Let me assure you that we 
have no ideal more lofty than the preservation of peace between 
peoples in the name of human happiness. The political and social 
organization of society is every state's own affair. We Soviet peo- 
ple believe that our social and political system is the most prog- 
ressive and best of all. Many do not agree with us. That's their 
affair. Let them live as they like. We are sure that as time passes 
they will see the advantages of the new system for themselves. I 
was very happy to see you and accept this present. When I drive 
through the streets of New York 1 see many friendly faces. I am 
aware that the absolute majority of Americans realize the aim 
of my visit, which has been made in the interests of preserving 
world peace. 

"Still there are a few who follow wolfish rules, so to speak, 
and howl when I drive through the city. I must confess to you that 
at home I allow myself the pleasure now and then of going out 
hunting and that is why I am familiar with the howling of 
wolves. What I want to say is that despite this howling there are 
many good-hearted people in America. 

"You and your wife are such Americans. You very well know 
how restorers work when they restore old paintings. They take 
off the accumulations of time, layer after layer, and get down to 
the genuine article. By your visit and symbolic gift you, like all 
men and women of good will, are showing that you profoundly 
believe in good relations between people, in the relations which 
should exist between the peoples of America and the Soviet Union." 
"My wife and I," said Mr. Pierce, "have lived in many coun- 
tries and we know that there are men and women of good will 
everywhere. As you so rightly noted in your speech today, war 
was a calamity in the past and would be a still greater calamity 
today. With A-bombs, a war cannot be limited, and I believe 
that it may menace the whole of civilization." 

"I agree," Khrushchev remarked. "I am pleased to see that 
we are of one mind as to the grave danger that an atomic war 

The American scholar then said that he wanted to go to the 
Soviet Union and that he hoped he would be given assistance in 


visiting museums and other institutions. He said he hoped this 
assistance would help him to get over some bureaucratic obstacles. 
"When you come to see us," said Khrushchev, "you will see 
that we are a hospitable people and that your notion of bureau- 
cratic obstacles is all wrong. The doors of our museums are wide 
open to guests. If I don't happen to be away when you come to 
Moscow and if you would like to see me, I will be happy to see 
you at the Kremlin," 

Mr. Pierce said that his wife was a writer. 

Turning to Mrs. Pierce, Khrushchev remarked, "Visit us and 
perhaps you too, as a writer, will find some interesting things to 
write about. We are not asking you to praise us. Just tell the truth 
and we shall be grateful." 

September 24, I960 

News Conference at Glen Cove 

Premier Khrushchev spent the week-end of September 24-25, 
1960 at the country house of the Soviet UN Mission in Glen Cove, 
Long Island. Spending the week-end with him there were N. V. 
Podgorny, head of the Ukrainian delegation, Kirill T. Mazurov, 
head of the Byelorussian delegation, President Antonin Novotny 
of Czechoslovakia, Todor Zhivkov, head of the Bulgarian delega- 
tion and Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, head of the Roumanian dele- 
gation together with members of their staffs. Representatives of 
the Hungarian and Albanian delegations had also been invited, 
but due to State Department restrictions, could not leave Man- 

Wladyslaw Gomulka of Poland and members of his delegation 
joined the group on Sunday. 

On Saturday afternoon, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the 
United Arab Republic arrived in Glen Cove for a conference with 
Premier Khrushchev. In the evening, a press conference was held 
with newsmen. 

question: Please describe your talk with Nasser. 

khrushchev: During the talk we exchanged views on general 
questions. We mainly talked of disarmament and the effort for a 


stronger peace. President Nasser and I are old acquaintances and 
we maintain good personal relations. 

question: Do you think your talk with Nasser was fruitful? 

Khrushchev: Yes, I do. 

question: Do you plan to meet Tito? 

khrushchev: We didn't come to any definite agreement about 
it, but I think we will meet. 

question: Why did you leave Manhattan for Glen Cove? 

khrushchev: There are no hares in Manhattan, whereas they 
are to be found here. I like them a lot. 

question: General Speidel of West Germany declared in Wash- 
ington recently that Western defenses should be moved eastward, 
to the Soviet frontiers. What can you say about that? 

khrushchev: Speidel didn't say anything new. He only re- 
peated Hitler's mad ideas. Everybody knows what Hitler's lot was. 
And it will be the lot of all who try to follow in his footsteps, of 
all the Speidels. 

question: British newspapers say that Macmillan is coming 
here to make peace between the Soviet Union and the USA. What 
do you think about that? 

khrushchev: To make peace, I think, is too strongly put. But 
we are prepared to accept Macmillan's help in improving Soviet- 
American relations. 

question: Does Nasser agree with you on disarmament? 

khrushchev: I didn't ask him about it. 

question: Did he tell you about any of his own proposals 
on disarmament? 

khrushchev: President Nasser will speak at the General 
Assembly himself and will express his views about the matter. 

question: What can you say about the position of the Western 
powers on West German armaments? 

khrushchev: One of the main contradictions in the position 
of the Western powers is that they speak of disarmament or rather 
control over armament, and at the same time continue to arm 
themselves and to give weapons to the most aggressive state, that 
is, West Germ an v. 

question: What can you say about your stay here, in the heart 
of capitalism, so to speak? 



khrushchev: This is the heart of capitalism and I have the 
heart of a Communist. Evidently, we can coexist on one planet. 
For instance, in the capitalist world it often happens that an old but 
rich widow marries a young man. And they live together, though 
lie evidently doesn't thirst so for the old woman's love. Still he 
lives with her. (Laughter.) In the same way, capitalist and social- 
ist states must coexist even though there is no love lost between 

question: Please tell us whether Nasser told you what he 
i bought about the speech you made in the UN yesterday? What 
was his comment? 

khrushchev: I would be showing disrespect for my guest if 
I asked him a question like that. That's why I didn't ask that. 

question: But perhaps he said something of his- own accord? 

khrushchev: You are a rather cunning American. You want 
to know what I talked about with the President during our con- 
versation. Try the front door as all normal human beings do, 
not the back one. (Laughter.) I won't tell you anything about 
the questions we discussed anyhow. 

question: You have a balcony on the third story here. You 
could give news conferences from it, like the one you gave in 
New York. 

khrushchev: There is no need for that here. You felt offended 
then that we were talking "on different levels." Now I can talk 
with you on the same level, on the ground. (Laughter.) 

In our talk here today I would like to provide some addi- 
tional explanations for the point of view I set forth at the General 
Assembly. In a statement to the press Mr. Herter said that I had 
allegedly declared war on the UN. All that I beg you to do, 
gentlemen of the press, is to be exact and not distort what I tell you. 

I would like to tell you once again what I said about the 
need for changing the structure of the UN Secretariat. My speech 
was not directed against Mr. Hammarskjold in person. It is not 
a matter of his person, but the fact that he expresses the position 
only of that group of countries which is headed by the USA. 

However, there are in the world countries with different 
social and political systems. You know that the USA represents 
the capitalist countries that belong to Western military blocs. 
Those are the aggressive imperialist states. Then there are also 


socialist countries, as you know. These countries conduct a policy 
of peace. 

There are countries that are neutral. The most typical o£ them 
are India, Indonesia, the United Arab Republic, Burma and 
Afghanistan, as well as Austria, Finland, Sweden, and other coun- 

Hence, the world is made up of states which are sharply 
divided into three groups. But the UN Secretary-General now 
reflects the position of the states belonging to the Western mili- 
tary blocs. For that reason, when he carries out a Security Council 
decision or a decision of the General Assembly he naturally carries 
it out in the interests of only one group of countries, to wit, the 
group he represents. This, of course, is done in detriment to the 
interests of the two other groups, the socialist and neutral groups. 

Therefore, we maintain that this cannot go on any longer. 
We think that not the UN Secretary-General by himself, but a 
more representative, collective executive body, perhaps a Secre- 
tariat-General, consisting of three Secretaries, should carry out the 
decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Were 
the group of states headed by the USA to nominate Mr. Ham- 
marskjold to this UN executive body, we would have no objections 
because we know him as a representative of these states. 

However, this Secretariat-General should also have represen- 
tatives from the socialist and neutral countries. Then the Secre- 
tariat would take into consideration the interests of all three groups 
of states, when carrying out UN decisions. 

This structure of the UN Secretariat would help also to solve 
the disarmament problem. Why? Because now, in point of fact, 
all have agreed that if we reach an agreement on disarmament 
we shall establish international armed forces which will be em- 
ployed under UN command. 

Suppose now that we have already agreed to disarm and to 
set up international armed forces. The question, then, is: who is 
going to command these forces? 

Will it be Marshal Malinovsky? He is an experienced com- 
mander, and I know him very well. But you will immediately ask: 
why Malinovsky? This is a lawful question. The Americans will 
say that it would be better to appoint the present NATO com- 
mander, Norstad, to the post, though I personally think Marshal 


Malinovsky is a better commander than Norstad. Then the neutral 
countries will ask: why is it only the great powers who are propos- 
ing their commanders? We also want our interests to be reflected, 
(hey will say. We also want our own commander, Marshal Amer, 

I ask you, gentlemen: will we ever be able to agree on these 
candidates? I don't think so. You won't accept our candidate, and 
we won't accept yours, Norstad, while as for Speidel, I suppose 
you won't nominate him yourselves. (Laughter.) Nor would you 
agree, I suppose, to have Amer. That means that it will be, in 
general, impossible to reach agreement on the establishment of 
international armed forces. If the UN armed forces are used as 
they are now, if they are commanded by Hammarskjold alone, 
no good will come of it. The Congo provides an instance of that. 

The Congo government asked the UN to help with armed 
forces. Armed forces were sent and began to operate against the 
lawful government which had asked for help. You know that these 
armed forces established control over the airfields, the radio sta- 
tion and communications and thus, far from helping, on the con- 
trary, complicated the work of the lawful Lumumba government. 

Incidentally, why do we support Lumumba? Because he is the 
Prime Minister of the lawful government appointed by the Parlia- 
ment which the Congolese people elected. But why did the troops, 
sent in the name of the UN, start operating against the Lumumba 
government? Because it was profitable for the colonialist-imperi- 
alist powers. They want to remove the Lumumba government which 
is for preserving the country's independence and which seeks to 
govern its country in the interests of the Congolese people. 

UN Secretary- General Flammarskjold is helping Tshombe. 
But that man is a traitor; he is betraying the interests of the 
Congolese people. Tshombe is what Petlura was during the revo- 
lution in our country. On behalf of the UN, Mr. Hammarskjold 
is supporting Colonel Mobutu in the Congo, a man who is also 
acting against the Congolese government. But Mobutu is a brigand. 
If we again were to look for a comparison with our country he 
would be akin to Wrangel, Kolchak, or other such flotsam of 
history which our people chucked out. To make a long story short, 
the forces operating against the lawful government, the lawful 
parliament and the Congolese people, are being supported by 


Hammarskjold on behalf of the UN. This means that in the 
Congo the UN Secretary-General is pursuing the policy of the 
Belgian colonialists and their sympathizer, the USA, and not the 
policy of the peace-loving socialist and neutral countries. 

Or take this example. If we agree to disarm— and I believe that 
with time we will— and if we establish UN armed forces, these 
armed forces, given the UN in its present structure, may find 
themselves under the command of a person, for example, Mr. 
Hammarskjold, who expresses only the interests of the West. 

Therefore gentlemen, judge for yourselves, can we, the Soviet 
Union and the countries of the socialist camp, agree in such a 
situation to disarmament and to the establishment of international 
armed forces which would operate under such a command? Of 
course not. 

One can also understand the point of the USA and the coun- 
tries affiliated with it in the military blocs. They would not trust 
us either, were the UN Secretary-General to be a representative 
of the socialist countries. So both sides should understand each 
other's mistrust of a one-man command of the UN Secretariat. 
The UN Secretariat-General should include not only a repre- 
sentative of the West and a representative of the socialist world, 
but also a representative of the neutral countries. 

This should be done in order that the Secretariat approach 
in a more objective way the implementation of decisions with 
respect to questions of an international order, with the aim of 
ensuring peace on earth and good neighborly relations between 

As you can see we have nothing against Hammarskjold per- 
sonally. We are looking for a more perfect form of organization 
that would guarantee peaceful coexistence of all states with dif- 
ferent political and social systems, so that the decisions the UN 
makes would not go against the interests of one or another UN 
member. That is our stand. It is not at all a belligerent position. 
On the contrary, it is a very peaceful one. And we are prepared 
to cooperate with Mr. Hammarskjold as the representative of a 
definite group of countries, as long as there are along with him 
in the Secretariat representatives, with the same powers, from the 
socialist and neutral countries, so that they may jointly decide 
all matters. 


We are not in favor of substituting our own candidate for 
Hammarskjold. You cannot find a man for this post who would 
be three persons wrapped up in one, who would be able to rep- 
resent all three groups of states at once. That just cannot be done. 
True, they say that God was three in one. But nobody has ever 
seen Him. So let Him remain in the imaginations of believers. 
What we want to have is a three-man UN Secretariat. 

It is already dark. It is very hard to take things down. I am 
taking care of your eyesight, gentlemen of the press. You will find a 
use for it (Laughter.) Let's end our talk. 

September 25, 1960 

News Conference ot Glen Cove (II) 

question: If the question of the Secretary-General is not de- 
cided as you suggest, will that mean the Soviet Union will dis- 
continue disarmament talks? 

Khrushchev: No, it won't. 

question: In the light of your proposal regarding the UN 
Secretariat, how will you react to the formation of international 
armed forces under the aegis of the United Nations if your pro- 
posal is not accepted? 

khrushchev: Under such conditions we shall not agree to the 
creation of international armed forces. We do not want such forces 
to be under the sole command of the UN Secretary-General. 

question: Do you intend to address this session once again? 

khrushchev: I intend to address it more than once, otherwise 
the travel expenses won't be covered, (Animation.) 

question: What subjects will you take up? 

khrushchev: That's a secret. 

question: It is rumored that Fidel Castro is going to speak 
for four hours. Will you have the patience to listen to him? 

khrushchev: I am ready to listen to Castro even for six hours. 

question: Today the United States launched a satellite which 
is to be orbited around the moon.* What do you have to say about 

♦The correspondent referred to a 387-pound sphere launched atop an 
Atlas A-66 rocket which, it was later learned, failed to reach its destination. (Ed.) 


Khrushchev: It is very good. If your satellite lands on the moon 
successfully, our lunik, which has been there for a long time al- 
ready, will welcome it as its American mate. Let's hope that they 
will get on nicely, on the principles of peaceful coexistence, which 
we still lack here on earth. 

question: An American general declared that two Soviet astro- 
nauts perished a few days ago. Is this true? 

khrushchev: It's one of those generals' jokes. (Laughter.) 

question: Do you think that Hammarskjold should resign? 

khrushchev: Let him think it over and decide by himself. 

question: You proposed, on condition that other countries 
find it expedient, that the UN headquarters be set up in Moscow. 
But you have censorship for foreign correspondents, there is no 
Western press on sale, and broadcasts are jammed. 

khrushchev; I have already said at the General Assembly, and 
I repeat now, that all conditions will be provided for the successful 
work of the representatives of various countries in the United 

question: The US government considers that Harnmarskjold's 
policy in the Congo was the best. What can you say on this score? 

khrushchev: This appraisal contradicts the facts. Of course, 
Hammarskjold suits you. Herter shakes his hand and solemnly 
hands over to him a check for five million dollars for rendering 
assistance to the Congo. In actual fact Hammarslcj old's policy has 
been harmful to the legitimate government of the Congo. Had 
there been three Secretaries-General in the United Nations, as we 
propose, they would not have tolerated a situation where United 
Nations troops helped not the legitimate Congolese government, 
but those who opposed it. The country should be ruled by its 
legitimate government and not by United Nations troops. 

Our times have seen many instances of people who were 
wrongly appraised. It is known, for example, that President Eisen- 
hower considered Syngman Rhee to be a most clever man. Where 
is Syngman Rhee now? Where is he hiding? 

question: If there were no UN troops in Korea, to whom 
would all Korea belong? To the North Koreans? 

khrushchev: To the Koreans, in any case. 'At the present time 
there are foreign troops in South Korea, and not in North Korea. 


I want to say once again that one man in a post such as that 
of Secretary-General of the United Nations cannot satisfy the de- 
mands of all the groups of member states of the UN. When uni- 
lateral decisions are made, the other side is compelled to rely on 
its national forces. But we should not bring matters to conflicts, to 
wars. The policy of operating "from positions of strength," and of 
"rolling back communism" has suffered many fiascoes. 

Remember Dulles, who initiated the policy of "rolling back 
communism." Regarding this policy Mr. Stevenson noted most 
wittily not long ago that the Democrats have been restraining 
communism in Europe while the Republicans are trying to restrict 
it in Manhattan. 

Communism has taken firm root and has developed into a 
mighty tree, which is not afraid now of any storms and tempests. 

question: Has this tree really taken such firm root? 

khrushchev: Try and shake it. There was an attempt to organ- 
ize intervention after the October Revolution, but nothing came 
of it. 

(At that moment shouts were heard from pickets standing 
a few yards away. Khrushchev remarked: "This is a manifestation 
of American 'culture' for you.") 

question: Our newspapers printed the full text of your speech 
in the United Nations, whereas there were only 600 words about 
Eisenhower's speech in your newspapers. Where is freedom of in- 
formation in this case? 

khrushchev: You don't know your own business. My speech 
was printed in full only in the New York Times, but without the 
supplements— the Declaration and our proposals on disarmament. 
As regards President Eisenhower's speech, the full text of it was 
printed in our newspaper Izvestia, whose circulation is several times 
bigger than that of the New York Times. Now you may judge of 
freedom of information. 

question: When Raul Castro was in Moscow you declared 
that in the event of US intervention against Cuba the Soviet Union 
would strike at the United States. Have I interpreted your state- 
ment correctly? 

khrushchev; More or less correctly. But you have no reason 
to feel nervous. Your analyst, Lippmann, wrote: "Khrushchev said 


'if'." But since America doesn't intend to attack Cuba, all danger 
has passed, 

question: You say that one should not peek through other 
people's fences. Why have you been the first to put up a fence? 

khrushchev: What fence? 

correspondent: The Iron Curtain. 

khrushchev: Wake up, young man. Have you been in the 
Soviet Union? Oh, you haven't! And still you are trying to prove 
something. Incidentally, when a peasant plants a garden he fences 
it in lest the shoots should be spoiled by pigs. 

Come to the Soviet Union, we shall give you a visa, and you 
will see that there is no Iron Curtain. 

correspondent:! feel all right here. I am quite happy. 

khrushchev: A slave also thinks he is happy having eaten 
leavings from his master's table. You are a slave of capitalism! 

correspondent: You too like to peek through other people's 

khrsushchev: Where is that? 

correspondent: In Hungary. 

khrushchev: It's all lies you are telling! At the request of the 
Hungarian Revolutionary Government the Soviet Union helped 
the Hungarian people to throw out traitors of the type of Colonel 
Mobutu in the Congo. 

(Pickets were again heard shouting nearby. The Premier 
pointed in that direction.) 

khrushchev: What's that? They must be earning dollars for 
a dinner. 

president wladyslaw gomulka of Poland remarked to cor- 

"You must understand, we have not come as your guests, but 
to attend the United Nations Organization, But look at the way 
some Americans are treating delegations from different countries! 
It's a disgrace! I am sure that nothing like this would have hap- 
pened in any other country." 

(At that moment N. V. Podgomy and K. T, Mazurov drove up 
in their cars. Khrushchev said: "Here come reinforcements in the 
persons of representatives of 'enslaved' Ukraine and Byelorussia. 
Look how 'enslaved' they are!") 


question: What is the purpose of your arrival at the United 


khrushchev: Above all, to achieve a decision on general and 
complete disarmament under strict international control in the 
interest of world peace. 

September 26, I960 

Speech at Cyrus Eaton Luncheon 

Cyrus Eaton, prominent American industrialist, gave a lunch- 
eon for Premier Khrushchev at the Hotel Biltmore. Attending 
were about two hundred businessmen and public figures from 
both the United States and Canada. Following is the Premier's 
speech at that luncheon which was also addressed by Senator 
Donald Cameron of Banff, Alberta, Canada and by Mr. Eaton 




It is a pleasure for me to be present at this luncheon and to 
meet the people I know, representatives of business and public 
circles of the United States and Canada. I have never been to 
Canada, but since the Canadians whom we see here have been 
invited by Mr. Eaton, I believe they share many of our honorable 
host's perfectly fair and wise ideas. 

I avail myself of this opportunity as your guest to congratulate 
you from the bottom of my heart on the high award you recently 
received— the International Lenin Prize for the Promotion of 
Peace Among Nations. We greatly appreciate your activity in 
strengthening peace and are happy that you merited the great 
honor of receiving one of the highest distinctions which the public 
can confer upon outstanding leaders of various countries working 
for the sake of strengthening world peace. I am also proud of the 
fact that the public has bestowed upon me the title of Laureate of 
the International Lenin Prize for the Promotion of Peace. This is 
a great honor for any man no matter what social and political 
views he holds. 


It is symbolic to a certain extent that you, one of the leading 
representatives of the capitalist world, and I, who hold no small 
place in the communist world, direct our common efforts toward 
the struggle for peace. This shows that given the desire and 
good will, people, despite differences in their views, can and must 
unite their efforts in the struggle for peace in order to safeguard 
peace among nations. 

In reply to your cordial speech, Mr. Eaton, I would like first 
of all to wish you and your esteemed wife further success in your 
activities for the good of peace, and happiness in your personal 

Allow me to thank you, Mr. Eaton, for your kind invitation 
to visit the state of Ohio where you wanted to show me some iron 
and steel plants and your farm. I am sure I would have seen many 
interesting things there. I hope and believe that the time will 
come when I shall be able to avail myself of your invitation without 
being restricted in my movements around the United States. 

You, Mr. Eaton, and I belong to the same generation; we have 
seen a lot in our lives. The entire history of the present day has 
practically passed before our very eyes and that is why, on the 
basis of life experience, we are able to judge it and draw definite 
conclusions. You and I hold different political, ideological and 
social views. And yet we have not lost the ability, after speaking 
together for a number of years, to understand one another reason- 
ably, to argue, to differ on a number of questions, without de- 
claring war on each other, without frowning when we meet. 

Why is this so? Because the capitalist Eaton and the com- 
munist Khrushchev when talking and meeting retain their opinions, 
as you understand. Just as I have no intention of converting Mr. 
Eaton to the communist faith, so, I hope, Mr. Eaton would not 
waste his time trying to turn me into a supporter of the capitalist 
point of view. But the representatives of the capitalist and the 
socialist states have to learn to understand one another in order 
to settle questions between states by peaceful means, to prevent 
the outbreak of military conflicts and a new world war. 

There are many examples of the peaceful competition of 
capitalist and socialist countries and their mutually advantageous 
cooperation. This is taking place because at the head of a number 
of capitalist states stand far-sighted political leaders who soberly 


appraise the course of international events and take the world 
as it is. They understand that business-like, mutually advantageous 
relations must be established with the socialist countries. 

I agree with you, Mr. Eaton, that we have opportunities to live 
in peace and successfully develop competition on a peaceful basis. 
And history will judge us and show which system is better. 

Public figures, journalists and ordinary people frequently ask 
me why I came to New York in the autumn of 1960. I want to 
speak about this again, although I think I explained it sufficiently 
clearly in my speech at the United Nations General Assembly. The 
Soviet delegation came to New York to the United Nations As- 
sembly in order to prove again and again the vital need for general 
and complete disarmament under international control. I repeat, 
under strict international control. 

In order to evade the disarmament problem and to divert 
public opinion some Western leaders say that we demand disarma- 
ment without control. 

The United States press alleges that in making the proposal 
on general disarmament I spoke hazily about control. I do not 
know how to disperse this haziness among those who have veiled 
their own eyes and their reason with this haze. Any sober-minded 
rjerson can read quite clearly what I said about international con- 
trol, and what is most important, we are prepared to sit down at 
the negotiation table and help to clarify the unclear questions. 
But before sitting down at the table and conducting negotiations 
we have to agree firmly that we must decide the question of dis- 
armament, we must achieve agreement on disarmament under 
strict international control. We demand precisely disarmament 
under control and not control over armaments. For control over 
armaments does not diminish the danger of a sudden outbreak of 
war. Control over armaments is also fruitless from the economic 
standpoint since it does not lighten the burden of the arms drive 
that lies entirely on the shoulders of the peoples. 

Mr. Eaton in his speech named the figure of 100 billion dol- 
lars annually spent on armaments. So what are we to do, double 
or treble this figure in a year or two, or in five years' time? Can 
we permit the colossal human values created by the efforts of 
millions upon millions of people to be spent unproductively or 
on the accumulation of weapons of mass extermination? 


Sober-minded people, no matter who they may be, cannot 
regard as normal such a purposeless and dangerous squandering 
of values created by the effort o£ people. Was it not worth coming 
to New York to fight again for such a just and noble cause as 
the termination of the arms race, complete abolition of the dis- 
graceful colonial system that humiliates the dignity of man? Was 
it not worth crossing the ocean to improve the activities of the 
United Nations Organization for the sake of strengthening peace? 
I think it was worth it! 

The Soviet Government did not spare and will not spare 
either effort or time to achieve disarmament, so that the peoples 
may be freed from the fear of a third world war, from the burden 
of taxes used for preparing a new war. 

We have submitted for the consideration of the Assembly 
other questions as well, the proper solution of which would help 
to normalize the international situation and lessen the danger of 
the outbreak of a nuclear war. 

I would like to say a few words in passing about some hasty 
statements and reproaches made against me in connection with the 
proposal on reorganizing the United Nations Secretariat. It is 
said that Khrushchev is attacking Hammarskjold and is creating 
a crisis in the United Nations Organization. 

I have already said that the chief thing is not the criticism 
of Mr. Hammarskjold as a person. The question at issue is not 
that he personally maintains the position of the US State De- 
partment in assessing international events but that this position 
of his affects the execution of United Nations decisions in favor of 
one group of states, to the detriment of other states. 

Can a man who adheres to the point of view of but one 
definite side execute a decision of the United Nations Organization? 
If the candidacy of Mr. Hammarskjold suits the Western countries 
we shall not object if they nominate him to the corresponding post 
in the executive triumvirate which we propose should be set up, 
but in this body, besides Mr. Hammarskjold, there must be a repre- 
sentative from the socialist countries and a representative from 
the neutral countries. In this way the executive body of the United 
Nations would reflect the actual correlation of forges that has been 
historically established in the present-day world. It is also said 
that in this case, the Soviet Union would have two-thirds of the 


United Nations executive power in its hands. They have in mind 
that the representative of the neutral countries would allegedly 
always support the position of the socialist countries, but in my 
opinion, this argument does not speak in favor of those who ad- 
vance it. It only shows that the policy now pursued by the ruling 
circles of the Western countries is obviously not meeting with 
sympathy among the states adhering to neutrality, 

Mr. Eaton said many reasonable things about the importance 
of improving relations between our two countries, about the suc- 
cesses achieved by the United States of America, and about the 
fact that we in the Soviet Union have achieved a high level of 
economic development. It is common knowledge that the Ameri- 
can people have attained much in their country's development 
but we do not envy this. We propose to the United States of 
America peaceful competition in economic development and in 
improving the people's well-being. I agree that this competition 
can be more successful if trade is organized between the two 
countries. During my last visit to the United States I spoke much 
about the usefulness of such trade without discrimination. 

Peaceful competition embraces the main economic indices 
and covers many other aspects of life. We should compete to see 
who produces more and cheaper steel, oil, grain and coal, who 
builds more dwellings, schools, scientific and cultural institutions 
so that the people may be better provided. We can also compete 
in baseball. We know that the Americans like this game very 
much. We have a game similar to this. It is called lapta. I played 
the game in my childhood. However, with age, and chiefly because 
of preoccupation with other things I had to give up playing lapta. 
Everything in its time. 

We are proud that Soviet young men and women gained the 
upper hand at the Olympic Games in Rome, but we also paid 
tribute to the American sportsmen who scored outstanding results 
in the Olympiad. 

You said, Mr. Eaton, that you like farming and are acquainted 
with it. I am pleased that you also appreciate my interest in agri- 
cultural production. I was born in the country and, although I 
have been living in town for a long time, I try to pay my native 
village a visit every summer during my holidays. 


I love to visit the place of ray birth. There, as everywhere else 
in our country, I see ever new changes for the better. The land is 
being better and more productively cultivated, our cities and 
villages are becoming more beautiful. And the most important 
thing is that people are living a better and more cultured life. 
They have every confidence in the morrow. 

Competition between socialism and capitalism is determined 
not only by the absolute quantity of national production and not 
only by the quantity of per capita production. It is also determined 
by achievements in the formation of the personality so that man 
who creates all the values on earth may be the first of these values, 
so that he may advance science and technology more successfully, 
easing life on earth and making it more beautiful for all people. 

You have asked me, Mr. Eaton, to see to it that the Soviet 
Government continues its tireless efforts in convincing the statesmen 
of the world to agree unconditionally to general and complete 
disarmament. As a statesman and as a man 1 can tell you that this 
is one of the primary purposes of my life, of the activities of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government. 
We are pleased that these actions in defense of peace and for 
disarmament are meeting with wide support among people of 
different social and political views. If all the peoples direct their 
efforts towards achieving disarmament and bring pressure upon 
those governments that resist this, then the peoples will be able 
to achieve general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Govern- 
ment on its part will do everything possible to achieve such agree- 
ment on disarmament and thus ensure peace throughout the world. 
Guided by reason and the experience of human history, all of 
us together must achieve disarmament and the world will then 
heave a sigh of relief. 

There is criticism in the American press about our proposals 
on disarmament. Some American journalists write approximately 
as follows: Khrushchev has proposed a plan for disarmament but 
he speaks somewhat hazily about control. 

I would like to address the representatives of the press if 
they are present here, and if they are not I would like my remarks 
to reach the press. Agreement should be reached An the first place 
on the main thing, on general and complete disarmament under 
strict international control. As for control, let us agree to this: you 


suggest your formulations. I am sure we shall find a common lan- 
guage on questions of control, because if agreement is reached on 
general and complete disarmament there will be no cause for argu- 
ment on questions of control over the fulfilment of the agreement 
on general and complete disarmament. 

If we do not reach agreement on disarmament, but talk only 
about control, nothing will come of it. But if we reach agreement 
on disarmament, on the disbanding of armies and abolition of 
means of mass destruction, it will be easy simultaneously with this 
to reach agreement on control. 

I repeat, we also agree to discuss any formulations on control 
for the sake of achieving agreement, for the sake of strengthening 

I would like to make the following suggestion to you. Our talks 
with the governments of the Western powers on disarmament do 
not seem to be making any headway so far. What if we try an 
experiment like this: let the business people of all countries— the 
United States, Britain, Canada, France, our country and other 
countries— journalists, lawyers and others— get together and help 
the governments to reach agreement on disarmament. I would 
gladly agree to present my views to these people if they invited 
me, and would listen to their considerations. The heads of the 
other governments would have to do likewise. I think this would 
be a very useful experiment which would facilitate the achieve- 
ment of an agreement on disarmament. After all, the people both 
in the socialist and in the capitalist countries want to live in 
friendship, to develop their economy so that peace reigns on 
earth, so that the people will not be threatened with war. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for your attention. 

I propose a toast to the health of Mrs. Eaton, Mr. Cyrus Eaton, 
and all of you gentlemen. (Applause.) 

At the conclusion of Khrushchev's speech, Cyrus Eaton said: 
"If you have no objections the representatives present at our meet- 
ing would like to ask you several questions." 

khrushchev: If you have any questions I am ready to answer 
them. Questions should not be evaded. 

question: Can the USSR and Canada have contacts in the sale 
of similar commodities, ores in particular? 


khrushchev: You want to know whether the Soviet Union 
can have contacts with Canadian industrialists in the production 
and sale of similar commodities, such as ores, for example. I can 
answer briefly, it can. 

We are cooperating, for example, in the international organiza- 
tion dealing with the sale of tin. There each country has a definite 
quota determined by a general agreement. Why not extend this 
principle to other commodities? 

We are prepared to sign such an agreement. Shall we sign it 
now, or later? (Laughter.) 

voices: Now! 

khrushchev: By all means, we are ready. 

question: Do you, Mr. Prime Minister, think, it possible that 
expenditures on arms could be considerably reduced by mutually 
beneficial, free trade between the United States, Canada and other 
countries and also the Soviet Union? 

khrushchev: Esteemed gentlemen! There is no greater happi- 
ness for the Soviet Government, for the Soviet people, than to 
reach agreement on the disarmament problem. For if we reached 
agreement on disarmament we would not only avert the threat of 
a new world war but would be able to increase manyfold peaceful 
production for the benefit of the peoples. That is why we are ready 
to cooperate with all states in this field. 

I can tell you that when I met with the President of the United 
States last year we had frank talks. He told me once: military men 
often come to me and say— give us money for the production of 
some weapon or other. If you don't the Russians will outstrip 
us in armaments. (Laughter.) The President asked me: And how 
are things in your country? I answered: In our country approxi- 
mately the same takes place. Military men and scientists approach 
the Government and ask for money for the production of new 
rockets. And we give then the money. Six months later the same 
people come and say: we have worked out more modern designs 
of rockets, give us money for these rockets. We tell them: but we 
have recently given you money for new rockets. And they answer: 
now we have produced more perfected rockets, give us money, 
otherwise the Americans will outstrip us. (Laughter.) 

And we have to give money again. It is like the story about 
the locust that has no end. (Laughter.) 


There are no limits to the arms drive. Let us stop this race 
to the abyss, let us stop the arms race, and the sooner the better. 
For this will be to the benefit of our countries, to the benefit of 
the peoples. (Applause.) 

dr. hill: Mr. Prime Ministerl I am among those who welcome 
your efforts and support your proposals on general and complete 
disarmament. These proposals envisage the establishment of inter- 
national inspection with posts in different countries. Since our 
countries possess vast territories, violations of the agreement are 
possible in remote areas of these countries. In this connection I 
would like to know your opinion on what your attitude will be 
should the population freely report to the international agency 
on a contemplated violation of the international agreement on 

khrushchev: On behalf of the Soviet Government I solemnly 
declare that we welcome everything the scientist has stated here 
in the question he put, and I can put my signature to what he 
said. (Prolonged applause.) 

At the conclusion of the meeting, Cyrus Eaton heartily thanked 
Premier Khrushchev for finding the time to meet with representa- 
tives of business and science from the United States and Canada. 

Mr. Eaton expressed the hope that the Premier would con- 
tinue with his former energy to uphold the great ideas of peaceful 
coexistence and disarmament directed towards strengthening world 

September 26, I960 

Letter to President of UN General Assembly 

The Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers forwarded the 
following letter to the President of the UN General Assembly on 
disarmament and the situation that has come about with respect 
to the realization of Resolution No. 1378 on Disarmament which 
the General Assembly adopted at its Fourteenth Session on No- 
vember 20, 1959: 

Supplementing the statement of the Government of the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics of September 23 on disarmament, I 
have the honor to forward herewith a draft resoultion on the 
question of the composition of the Disarmament Committee which 


the delegation of the USSR is submitting to the Fifteenth Session 
of the General Assembly of the United Nations for consideration. 
Please circulate this letter as an official document of the Gene- 
ral Assembly. 

N. Khrushchev 

Chairman of the Council of Ministers 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

Draff Resolution of 
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

The General Assembly resolves that the number of participants 
in the Ten Nation Disarmament Committee be increased to include, 
besides the representatives of Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia, 
France, Italy, Poland, Roumania, the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland, and the United States of America, the representatives of 
the following countries: India, Indonesia, the United Arab Re- 
public Ghana and Mexico. 

October 1, I960 

Concerning Representation of the People's Republic 
of China in the United Nations 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 


The delegation of the Soviet Union believes it necessary to 
submit for the consideration of the General Assembly the question 
of restoring the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China 
in the United Nations. 

There is not the slightest doubt that the artificial barring of 
the People's Republic of China from participation in United 
Nations activities greatly harms our organization, considerably 
narrows the scope of its activities, hampers the consideration of 
international problems for the solution of which the collective 
efforts of all states are required, and renders the fruitful considera- 
tion of major problems virtually impossible. 


I wish to emphasize particularly that the question concerns 
the restoration of the rights of a great power which, according to 
the UN Charter, is a founder and a member of the United Nations 
and a permanent member of the Security Council, but which so far 
has had no possibility of taking its legitimate place, participating 
in the work of the United Nations and making a contribution to 
its activities. 

The situation is completely abnormal when the great Chinese 
people, comprising one-fourth of all mankind, has no representa- 
tives in the organization that is called upon to be the broadest 
international forum and is based on the principle of the universal 
representation of all the countries of the world. 

States with diverse social systems and forms of government 
are represented in the United Nations, and it is here that a realistic 
image of the contemporary world should be reflected as in a mirror. 
Under the present state of affairs, however, when there are no 
representatives of China in the United Nations, a genuine image 
of the present-day world is not reflected in the United Nations. It 
is distorted beyond recognition. 

It is clear to every man of common sense that the People's 
Republic of China is a great power that unites the whole Chinese 
people, and that the Government of the People's Republic of 
China exercises absolute state power over the entire territory of 
China, except for a few islands where the remnants of the Chiang 
Kai-shek clique routed by the Chinese people are still holding out 
temporarily under the protection of the American fleet. 

The People's Republic of China has received wide inter- 
national recognition and has established normal diplomatic rela- 
tions with 34 states. The international ties of the People's Republic 
of China are rapidly expanding. The trade and cultural relations 
of People's China now embrace almost the entire world. 

The Chinese people are engaged in a titanic effort to trans- 
form their country, which in the recent past was economically 
backward, into an advanced industrial socialist state. And they are 
vitally interested in keeping the peace and are in favor of peaceful 
international economic and cultural cooperation. 

China was one of the sponsors of the five principles of peace- 
ful coexistence in 1954. The Government of the People's Republic 
of China repeatedly submitted proposals aimed at lessening inter- 


national tension in the Far East as well as in the whole world. The 
People's Republic of China made a large contribution to the peace- 
ful settlement in Indochina, Korea and other areas of the Asian 
continent. The Government of China actively favors the creation 
of a zone of peace in Asia as well as a zone free from atomic wea- 
pons in the Pacific. It proposes a peaceful nonaggression treaty 
among all countries of Asia and the Pacific, including the United 

Chou En-lai, the Premier of the Council of State of the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China, speaking in Peking on August 1, I960, 
re-emphasized that the Government of the People's Republic of 
China adheres to the policy of peaceful coexistence of states with 
different social systems. He said, and I quote: "We want peaceful 
coexistence not only with Asian and Arab countries but with Euro- 
pean countries and countries of other areas of the world as well." 
"We are in favor," he continued, "of a peaceful nonaggression pact 
among the Asian countries and the countries of the Pacific, includ- 
ing the USA, so that this entire area may become a zone free from 
nuclear weapons." 

The policy of the Government of China attests convincingly 
to the fact that it firmly adheres to the basis of the five principles 
of peaceful coexistence and that it supports the main objectives 
and principles of the United Nations by its practical actions, 
exerts great efforts to widen international cooperation and to 
strengthen peace and friendship among nations. 

Then why has the United Nations still been unable to solve 
the important and absolutely clear question of the representation 
of People's China? Mainly because the United States of America 
does not want this. It does its utmost to prevent the People's Re- 
public of China from taking its legitimate place in the United 

At this session of the UN General Assembly many heads of 
state and government have in all clarity spoken about the ab- 
solutely intolerable situation that has taken shape as a result of 
the great People's China not being represented in the United 

The Government of the United States pursues a hostile and 
aggressive policy against People's China. The United States, having 
committed an act of aggression against China as far back as in 


1950, forcibly captured the island of Taiwan and continues to use 
it as a base for carrying out warlike provocations against the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China, continues to build up the so-called "de- 
terrent forces" in the Far East and to spend billions of dollars for 
assistance to the Chiang Kai-shekists and for the preparation of 
new war provocations. 

The United States has set up numerous military bases along 
the Chinese frontiers. In the past eighteen months it has under- 
taken more than forty major military maneuvers in the Far East 
area, of which almost half were in Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits. 
The American generals make no secret of the fact that these man- 
euvers were spearheaded against the People's Republic of China. 

And at the same time highly placed American political leaders 
hypocritically talk of the "aggressive nature" of the People's Re- 
public of China. They constantly harp on the illegal resolution 
proclaiming China an "aggressor" which the United States in the 
past has foisted upon the General Assembly. Incidentally, it would 
be appropriate in connection with the above-mentioned resolution 
to inquire whose troops are at present stationed in Korea. If the 
State Department has a short memory, it can be recalled that 
Chinese volunteers have long since left that country, while Ameri- 
can troops continue to occupy South Korea. 

The attempts of the United States Government to revive a 
political corpse like Chiang Kai-shek and his putrid regime, which 
was rejected by the Chinese people, merely poison the interna- 
tional atmosphere in the Far East. 

Distinguished delegates, 

It is now more than ten years that the United Nations has been 
considering the question of People's China taking its legitimate 
seat in the United Nations. Each time this rostrum is taken by 
representatives of states who express the attitude of their govern- 
ments toward this important question. Each time the states are, 
in the main, divided into two groups when discussing this item. 
One group follows the logic of the actual state of affairs, protects 
the legitimate rights of the great Chinese people, and declares 
plainly and openly, without hesitation, that it is time to eliminate 
a great historical injustice and to invite the Government of the 
People's Republic of China to send its delegation, which would 


be here together with all o£ us in the United Nations and would 
take part in all its activities. 

Under various pretexts the representatives of other states have 
been dodging a just decision and, in this way or another, have 
been trailing in the wake of the United States Government in 
thwarting the acceptance by the United Nations of the decision 
to restore the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China 
in the United Nations. 

The arguments which the United States Government adduces 
against People's China can sound convincing only for those who 
follow in the footsteps of the American politicians who more than 
ten years ago sustained a fiasco in China as a result of the fall of 
the mercenary Kuomintang regime and the victory of the Chinese 
People's Revolution. 

It is well known that for sixteen years the American ruling 
circles did not recognize the Soviet Union for the sole reason that 
our people had destroyed the bourgeois-landlord system and had 
carried through the Great Socialist Revolution. Naturally, our 
people did not ask the permission of any American politicians. The 
Chinese people, led by their Communist Party, acted likewise. 

We do not doubt that the time will come when the political 
leaders of the United States will show a more sober approach to 
People's China and will, instead of the hostility w r hich is today 
manifest at every step, regard that great country with dignity and 

Until the People's Republic of China takes its legitimate seat 
in the United Nations no conditions can be created for genuine 
negotiations and for the solution of the disarmament question. In- 
deed, if any agreement is reached on disarmament, will such an 
agreement be valid without China? After all, even if a disarmament 
agreement is negotiated, the United States will declare that it 
cannot be implemented because of China's non-participation, while 
it is the United States itself that is blocking in every possible way 
the participation of the People's Republic of China in the United 

We insistently urge you, distinguished delegates, to break this 
vicious circle. There cannot indeed be anv disarmament without 
China, there cannot be any normal functioning of the United 
Nations without China. 


Sensing the absurdity of the version that China is "repre- 
sented" in the United Nations by the Chiang Kai-shekists and 
fearing for the fate of the Kuomintang stooges, the United States 
and certain other Western countries are attempting to railroad 
through the notorious idea of "two Chinas." But it is after all no 
secret to anybody that the idea of "two Chinas" is, in effect, a poorly 
camouflaged strategem aimed at dismembering the territory of 
Great China and tearing away the province of Taiwan, which is 
one of its parts. 

It has long been clear that the provocative plans for creating 
"two Chinas" are doomed to failure, and the sooner certain poli- 
tical leaders in the United States understand this, the better it 
will be for the cause of world peace. 

Those who think that it is the People's Republic of China 
that is most in need of the restoration of China's rights in the 
United Nations are mistaken. These gentlemen are making a mis- 
take. If the purpose of our organization as a universal organization 
uniting all nations is interpreted correctly, it is difficult to say 
who is in greater need of the restoration of China's rights in the 
United Nations, whether it is China itself or the United Nations, 
which is called upon to be the broadest and most representative 
international organization. This organization is in need of such a 
great nation, such a great country as the People's Republic of 
China being represented in the United Nations and taking an 
active part in its work. 

That is why the Soviet delegation proposes that the question 
of the restoration of China's legitimate rights in the United 
Nations be considered and resolved as an important and pressing 
question at the very outset of the work of the General Assembly 

Allow me, Messrs. Delegates, to reply to the speech of the 
United States representative, who argued the necessity of con- 
tinuing the present bankrupt policy with regard to the People's 
Republic of China and suggested that the Soviet proposal to restore 
China's legitimate rights in the United Nations be rejected. 

The United States representative referred here to the speech 
of Comrade P'eng Chen, the Peking Mayor. I know Comrade 
P'eng Chen well; and had you seen him, you would realize that 


he is absolutely not the kind of person he was presented to be here. 
He is a good man who enjoys respect in his country. The repre- 
sentative of the United States referred to the fact that Comrade 
P'eng Chen called the United States an imperialist power. But 
is this a discovery, gentlemen? Indeed, the whole world knows 
that the most imperialist power supporting the colonial regimes 
is the United States of America. All the sparrows are chirping 
this from the rooftops. And the United States representative, you 
see, is incensed by this statement of Comrade P'eng Chen's. What 
innocence! Just like a woman who tries to pass for a young girl 
even though she may have a dozen children. The United States 
representative also stated that Comrade P'eng Chen had said that 
Mr. Hammarskjold had followed in the Congo a policy in the in- 
terests of American imperialism, in the interests of the colonialists. 
Is this any news either? Mr. Hammarskjold himself knows better 
than P'eng Chen, whose policy he followed in the Congo, that 
he is a loyal servant of monopoly capital and represents in the 
United Nations the interests of states which are pursuing a piratical, 
imperialist, colonial policy. 

The United States representative said that the People's Repub- 
lic of China is attempting to seize islands in the Pacific. But what 
islands. I ask you, Mr. Representative of United States imperialism? 
The People's Republic of China wants to liberate Taiwan and 
other islands. To whom do these islands belong? 

Look at the international agreements on this score which also 
bear the signature of the American state's representative and you 
will see that they say that Taiwan and the other islands located 
close to the Chinese coast belong to the Chinese people. The liber- 
ation of these islands is the legitimate right of the People's Repub- 
lic of China, and we have supported these legitimate rights of 
the Chinese people and will continue to support them. Moreover, 
I should say that the Government of the People's Republic of 
China is displaying great constraint with regard to the liberation 
of these islands. But this is their internal affair and no one has 
any right to interfere. But had the Soviet Union found itself in 
a similar position, you may be sure that we would not have 
tolerated the occupation of our territory and would have long ago 
thrown all the traitors to the devil, so as to banish their very scent, 
so that these islands may belong to the people. 


The United States delegate enlarged here on the regime in 
People's China. He indulged in many distortions and fabrications 
concerning repressions of some sort allegedly taking place there. 
All this is malicious slander of People's China. This is not a new 
trick. How much was the Soviet Union slandered, how many times 
was its doom forecast! But the Soviet Union lives and prospers. 
There is no system more democratic than that of the socialist states. 

Is it for you, gentlemen from the United States, to say what 
democracy is? Sooner or later you will have to take a lesson in 
organizing a system under which the rights of every man are truly 
respected. Genuine democracy is possible only under socialism, 
under communism. Before speaking about regimes in socialist 
countries, I should recommend that the American representative 
look in a mirror and see what kind of regime exists in the United 

The United States representative appealed here to the African 
countries and claimed that the United States loved these countries 
and was taking care of them. But, my dear gentlemen, in your 
democratic country can the representatives of these states— if they 
do not have United Nations credentials— stay at a hotel, get a 
lunch or dinner in a restaurant for whites? No, they cannot. This 
is humiliating, insulting to the dignity of every man. In America 
there is a sharp line between whites and Negroes. Is that democ- 
racy, is that respect for man? No, this is man-hating, sowing of 
enmity between whites and blacks. 

Let Negroes and representatives of other peoples of Asia and 
Africa come to our country, to the Soviet Union, to the People's 
Republic of China, to any socialist country; they will find there a 
truly humane attitude, love and friendship. They will find this not 
because they are black but because our peoples deeply sympathize 
with those who are righting for freedom, who for centuries have 
suffered, have been humiliated and oppressed by the colonialists. 

In America Negroes are lynched and hanged only because they 
are black. All the world knows this. This is the subject of books, 
of press reports. Turn to your history, representative of the United 
States! We bow our heads to Abraham Lincoln, the great American 
who raised the banner of the struggle for the liberation of the 
Negroes. He was an American and he fought against other Ameri- 


cans for the equality of peoples, for justice. But racial discrimina- 
tion exists in the United States even today. 

To this day in a number of localities in the United States 
Negro children cannot attend schools together with whites. Is this 
not a shame for a civilized society? And the United States repre- 
sentative deigns to smear the truly democratic regime of the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China, which is building socialism. In our 
country we have a saying in such cases which runs somewhat like 
this: "He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones." 

The United States representative smeared the regime of the 
People's Republic of China. To this I would say: the ruling circles 
of the United States are very friendly with regimes which are far 
from being democratic. 

You regard Franco as your best friend— the butcher of the 
Spanish people, who has suppressed all democratic freedom in 
Spain, established a regime of bloody dictatorship, and is chopping 
off the heads of Spain's finest sons. But the Spanish people will 
rise to the struggle, will mete out just retribution to the butchers, 
and truth will triumph on Spanish soil! 

(The President of the General Assembly interrupted Khrush- 
chev and asked him to cooperate and refrain from personal attacks 
on the head of a member state of the United Nations. He said that 
these zvords by the speaker would be omitted from the official 
record of the session.) 

I consider the President's remark improper. Why didn't you 
stop the representative of the United States when he slandered 
great China? In the United Nations there must be equal condi- 
tions for all states, and if you permit insults against socialist 
countries we shall not tolerate it. I reject such remarks. We did not 
come here as suppliants, we came as representatives of a great 
nation, of a great socialist state, and we are defending our friend 
—the People's Republic of China, its regime, its laws! 

Now concerning the Franco regime. The United States main- 
tains friendly treaty relations with this regime, has military bases 
on Spanish soil for conducting its aggressive imperialist policy. 

Another best friend of the Government of the United States, 
whom it has proclaimed "a man of genius," is Syngman Rhee— the 
hangman of the Korean people. He brought matters to such a 
pass that he was booted out of South Korea and secretly made a 


getaway from Korea in an American plane. And where is he hiding 
now? You may rest assured that he is of course kept by the United 
States of America. 

In South Vietnam, too, they are chopping off people's heads, 
and actually it is the domain of the United States. 

I should like to cite another argument in reply to the state- 
ment of the United States representative. He reproached Comrade 
P'eng Chen for having called America an imperialist state and for 
having called Mr. Hammarskjold, who is the Secretary-General 
of the United Nations (although I think this injustice will be 
rectified), a conductor of the policy of the colonialists. But if the 
representative of the United States considers that it is logical to 
demand, on this ground, that the People's Republic of China not 
be admitted to the United Nations, may it be asked: why then, 
do the representatives of the United States tolerate the presence 
of representatives of the Soviet Union, who now, as before, oppose 
the imperialist policy of the United States and the disgraceful role 
played by Mr. Hammarskjold in the Congo? 

One more argument. It is your business, Messrs. Delegates, 
how you decide the question of restoring the legitimate rights of 
People's China in the United Nations. Sometimes when certain 
persons make unjust decisions, they consider these decisions to be 
right. But time, history, show such decisions to be false. What is 
the object of the people who deny China her rights in the United 
Nations? Do they want the United Nations to consist only of states 
with one social system? They do not like the People's Republic of 
China, they do not like the socialist system. But what would hap- 
pen if the socialist countries withdrew from the United Nations 
and created an international organization of their own, if they 
appealed to other countries urging support for their efforts in 
the struggle for peace? That would be the death of the United 
Nations. That would mean no United Nations but two alignments 
which would be continuously ranged against each other. That 
would lead not to the lessening but rather to the aggravation of 
international tension, to an arms race. We do not want this. What 
we do want is that the United Nations really unite all states, 
regardless of their social and political systems, that it really unite 
all nations. Our common duty is to ensure life on earth without 
war between states, without armed conflict; and this can be at- 


tained only if all states are united in a single organization— the 
organization of the United Nations. That is why we support the 
United Nations. 

He who wants peace on earth, he who wants disarmament 
must vote for the People's Republic of China to take her legiti- 
mate place in the United Nations, for her to take part in the 
activities of this organization aimed at strengthening peace. 

What the United States representative is suggesting here is a 
reflection of the old imperialist policy of inciting states against 
each other. That is why it does not want China to take her place 
in the United Nations. And they need this in order to follow the 
policy of the cold war, of the arms race, to thwart the possibility 
of agreement on disarmament. This is being done in pursuance 
of the policy of Dulles, the "brink of war" policy. But we know 
that any brink is a most precarious place, and even the best 
acrobat who undergoes special training may topple over at any 
time. It sometimes happens that he does topple and this is the 
end of him. This is a misfortune for the person. But if the policy 
of brinkmanship "topples" from this brink, that will be a catas- 
trophe for all the countries of the world, because this will be a 
terrible, a nuclear missile war. 

Those who fail to grasp this should stop to think about it. 

In order to prevent a further aggravation of international 
tension it is essential to restore the rights of People's China in the 
United Nations. It is necessary to throw the Chiang Kai-shekist 
corpse to the devil and give the place in the United Nations to 
a real living body-the People's Republic of China. 

October 3, I960 

A Reply on the Question of the 
Structure of UN Governing Bodies 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 


By way of reply to the speeches of certain delegates I should 
like to explain once more the position of the Soviet delegation 
on an important matter placed before the present General Assem- 


bly of the United Nations for consideration. What I have in mind 
is the role and place of the executive organ of the United Nations 
which we are suggesting instead of the office of Secretary-General. 

I am doing so in order to give a rebuff to those who distort our 
position as well as to explain it to those to whom the meaning 
of this proposal is not as yet clear, but who want to study and 
understand it correctly. 

You will recall that the United Nations was created in 1945. 
In the circumstances attending the victorious termination of World 
War II, the best minds of that time thought about ways for estab- 
lishing normal relations among states, for creating an interna- 
national body which could solve outstanding problems arising 
between states or groups of states so as to prevent matters from 
becoming aggravated and especially to preclude war. This was 
the main task before the United Nations. 

A charter of this organization was drafted which provided 
that there exist a General Assembly comprising all states which 
have accepted the United Nations Charter and meet the demands 
of the Charter. 

For the solution of important questions, especially when they 
cause tension, there was established a Security Council so that it 
would be possible to reduce this tension without allowing matters 
to become aggravated, much less result in war. 

The Soviet Union, China, the United States of America, Great 
Britain and France, the great countries of that time, were ap- 
proved as permanent members of the Security Council. It was laid 
down by the Charter of the United Nations that decisions taken 
by the Security Council require the unanimity of these five states. 
This was not accidental. It reflected the wisdom of the sponsors 
and creators of the United Nations who took into account the real 
international conditions of that time. 

Fifteen years have now passed since the United Nations was 
founded. Have any changes taken place in the world since that 
time? Yes indeed, tremendous changes have occurred. He who fails 
to realize this is in a heavy sleep and remains in the same state 
he was in fifteen years ago with all his old views and understanding 
of world problems. But we are dealing, or rather should be deal- 
ing, not with persons in a state of heavy sleep but with persons 
who have lived all this time and worked together with their peo- 


pies and states, who see that great social and political changes 
have occurred in the world. When World War II ended, there 
were only two socialist states in all the world- the Soviet Union 
and the Mongolian People's Republic. 

Unfortunately, this republic has not yet been admitted to the 
United Nations, and I would like to stress once more that such 
an attitude toward the Mongolian People's Republic is absolutely 

The leader of the capitalist world— the United States of Amer- 
ica—emerged from the war the richest and economically most 
powerful state; the United States lost less than other countries 
during the war but earned from it more than any other state. 

In the early postwar years the Soviet Union had a powerful 
army but a devastated national economy, and the three imperialist 
powers hoped that our state would soon breathe its last. They 
hoped that the existence of the socialist system on earth would 
thus end and socialism would survive only as an ideological and 
theoretical question. 

But all these hopes of the imperialists, colonialists and mo- 
nopoly capital proved to be illusory, and collapsed. 

Not only did the Soviet Union restore its strength, but it 
also developed at a rate of advance which astonished all mankind. 
We train annually more than 100,000 engineers, we have cre- 
ated the world's first atomic power station, built the first atomic 
icebreaker, which is successfully breaking the ice in the Arctic 
Ocean. We have been the first to launch rockets into outer space. 
The successes of the Soviet Union have proved how great are the 
advantages of the socialist system, how boundless are the possibili- 
ties that socialism and communism offer for the development of the 
talents of the people. 

The road of socialism has been adopted by great China, 
which is successfully developing her economy and culture. Peo- 
ple's China offers one more objective illustration of how peoples 
liberated from imperialist oppression can quickly gain strength, 
consolidate their independence, overcome the economic and cul- 
tural backwardness of their countries. 

Highly instructive is the example of Czechoslovakia. In the 
past it was a highly developed industrial capitalist country. Bour- 
geois ideologists contended that only backward, underdeveloped 


countries provide the ground for socialism. Czechoslovakia refuted 
these fabrications and demonstrated that even a highly developed 
country which embarks on the road of socialism provides its peo- 
ple with unparalleled conditions for rapid progress, for a better 

Or take the German Democratic Republic (GDR) . Having 
adopted the path of peace, progress and socialism, the popula- 
tion of the German Democratic Republic put an end to the 
oppression of monopolies and militarism. Now the GDR is a peace- 
loving and rapidly developing country. It threatens no one. Quite 
different is the situation in West Germany. Its economy is devel- 
oping on capitalist foundations, there is a revival of the same 
forces— revanchism, militarism, fascism— which had plunged the 
world into the Second World War. A hotbed of a new military war 
menace is developing there and it follows not a peaceful but a 
warlike policy. 

These are only separate examples which show that socialism 
augurs peace, progress, prosperity, complete salvation from all the 
calamities and vices of capitalism for all mankind. Socialism has 
securely won its place on our planet, has earned the recognition 
and respect of the peoples. 

The socialist states of Europe and Asia unite under their 
banners more than one billion people; they demonstrate to the 
whole world the advantages of the new and young socialist system 
over moribund capitalism. 

I would like to draw the attention of the esteemed delegates 
to the Assembly to the question, apparently so simple: is it possible 
to ignore the fact that more than one billion of a global popula- 
tion of three billion live in countries most of which have formed 
and shaped their socialist statehood in the course of the past fifteen 

It would seem that serious political leaders cannot ignore the 
new social structure of the world which is having a decisive influ- 
ence on international relations today. 

If this irrefutable fact is recognized, and only politically 
shortsighted people can refuse to recognize it, it will become 
crystal clear that the structure of certain organs of the United 
Nations which was quite normal at that time and was in line with 
the actual state of affairs is now outmoded. More than one-third 



of the global population are to some extent discriminated against 
in the United Nations agencies, as, for instance, in the Security 
Council and particularly in the Secretariat. President Sukarno 
of Indonesia described this correctly in his speech here. Besides 
the large and powerful detachment of socialist countries, new 
young states, following a neutralist policy, have emerged on the 
international scene. 

There is great India, which only recently was a British colony; 
there is Indonesia, a former Dutch colony; Burma and the United 
Arab Republic; there are young states of Africa and Asia. They 
have become independent countries and their population exceeds 
one billion. But the interests of these countries are not taken into 
consideration either in the Security Council or in the Secretariat 
of the United Nations. 

We all live on one planet and therefore we must search for 
ways to normalize the relations among all states, to establish co- 
operation on an equal footing. The United Nations must be pre- 
cisely the forum, the body where such cooperation is effected in 
the broadest and fairest way in the interests of preserving peace. 

When the Soviet Government raises the question, for instance, 
of reorganizing the General Secretariat, this only shows our sincere 
concern for the necessity of ensuring the correct functioning of the 
United Nations; it shows that we take into consideration the inter- 
ests of the peoples of all countries instead of the interests of some 
group of countries or even some circles. 

Now one man is the interpreter and executant of all the deci- 
sions of the Assembly and the Security Council. But an old saying 
has it: there are no saints on earth and there have never been. 
Let those who believe that there are saints keep their belief. We 
have no faith in such fables. 

And so this one man, Mr. Hammarskjold in this case, must 
interpret and execute the decisions of the Assembly and the Se- 
curity Council with due consideration for the interests of the coun- 
tries of monopoly capital, the interests of the socialist countries, 
and the interests of the neutralist countries. But this is impossible. 
Everyone has seen how vigorously the imperialist countries have 
been defending the position of Mr. Hammarskjold. Is it not clear 
whose interests he interprets and executes, to" whom this "saint" 


Mr. Hammarskjold has never been objective toward socialist 
countries; he has always defended the interests of the United 

States of America and other countries of monopoly capital. The 
developments in the Congo, where he played a most unseemly 
role, were but the last straw that has exhausted our patience. In- 
deed, had the composition of the Secretariat and the Security 
Council been different, no particularly tense developments would 
have taken place in the Congo. The colonialists would not have 
dared to seize power again; and had they done so, the United 
Nations forces not only would have expelled them but would have 
created conditions for the normal functioning of the Parliament 
and government lawfully elected by the Congolese people. 

When the colonialists granted independence to the Congo, 
they expected it to be only fictitious. But the Congolese Govern- 
ment decided to defend its political and economic rights in all 
seriousness. It enraged the colonialists, they embarked on a military 
gamble and decided to impose on the Congolese people the old 
colonial order under the guise of fictitious independence. 

I repeat, unfortunately in the United Nations the Congolese 
people did not find a protector of their interests. Is this the way 
to fulfill the tasks and purposes of the United Nations? 

Mr. Hammarskjold used the United Nations Armed Forces 
not to support the lawful Parliament and government of the 
Congo, at whose request these troops were sent there, but to sup- 
port the forces of the colonialists who were and are fighting against 
the Congolese Parliament and the lawful government in order to 
resubjugate the Congo. He used the United Nations Forces to 
interfere in the internal afEairs of the young state. No one can 
tolerate any longer a situation in which the United Nations is 
used not to help the Congolese people, but to act against them, 
in which the United Nations acts in the interests of the colonialists. 
This was justly noted here by the leaders of the delegations of 
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Ghana, the United 
Arab Republic, Cuba, Indonesia and others. 

To avoid any misunderstanding, I want to repeat: we do not 
and cannot trust Mr. Hammarskjold. Unless he himself shows 
enough courage and resigns, which would be a chivalrous act, so 
to speak, we shall draw the necessary conclusions from the situa- 
tion now obtaining. A man who has trampled upon elementary 


justice is not fit to occupy such an important post as that of the 

Some people may say that probably Mr. Hammarskjold should 
be replaced by another, more worthy person. They reason in the 
following way: suppose Mr. Hammarskjold made a gross mistake; 
is it not possible to rectify it by replacing him by another man? 
This, of course, could be done. But would we thus safeguard the 
United Nations against the repetition of similar mistakes in the 
future? I do not think so. Any other Secretary-General cannot be 
an objective representative of the three different groups of states. 

Now, unfortunately, there is a certain bias in the work of the 
United Nations, in the work of the General Assembly, the Security 
Council and the Secretary-General. So far only one group of coun- 
tries, led by the United States, dominates here; and it dominates 
now not even by the right of the strong. At present these states 
have lost the so-called right of the strong because nothing but a 
fetish remains of the former strength which helped the colonialists 
to keep the colonial peoples in subjugation. 

The actual state of affairs in the world today is such that the 
strength of the two most powerful states— the Soviet Union and the 
United States—is at least equal; and if we take into consideration 
other socialist countries and also former colonial countries, it will 
become clear that the peace-loving states have not only the law 
and justice but also strength on their side. 

And if this is not taken into consideration, the United Nations 
will, of course, not be able to function. Strictly speaking, it will 
then fully lose its significance because it will be unable to fulfill 
its main task— to maintain peace among nations. 

But then why should we speak of the future? We see now the 
result of the one-sided approach to the solution of the questions 
confronting the United Nations due to the predominance of the 
imperialist states in this organization. The post of the Secretary- 
General is occupied by a representative of the Western Powers; 
no representative of the socialist countries has even once been 
allowed to take the post of the President of the General Assembly 
in fifteen years. This is a situation that calls for no special ex- 

The pressure of the imperialist countries at the General As- 
sembly becomes particularly evident in settling the question of 


the restoration of China's legitimate rights in the United Nations. 
I have already spoken about this and I am repeating this again 
for those who are thwarting the solution of the question on the 
participation of the People's Republic of China in the United 
Nations, for those who this time again follow in the wake of the 
imperialist powers. It must be clear to everyone that this injustice 
must be rectified at long last. No disarmament is possible without 
China; without China there can be no normal work of the United 

But it is important that the United Nations be able to quench 
the heat of war in time, wherever it may appear. How can it be 
done? It can be done only by taking into consideration the interests 
of all three groups of states, by taking into consideration the in- 
terests of the colonial peoples as well. Now the colonialists are 
doing their utmost to perpetuate the regime of slavery in colonial 
countries, and in the countries whose peoples are winning their 
independence the colonialists are trying to hoodwink them by 
granting fictitious independence while actually trying to perpetu- 
ate the colonialist regime. 

Thus, in view of the present conditions, is it possible to choose 
one man for the post of the United Nations Secretary-General who 
would be able to reckon with the interests of all three groups of 
states? We think that this is impossible. Of course, from the view- 
point of devotion to the ideas of peace, the ideas of humaneness, 
one might appoint to the post of Secretary-General a representa- 
tive of the socialist states, and such a man would truly reflect the 
most progressive ideas of human society, the ideas of ensuring 
peace. But it is a foregone conclusion that the Western Powers 
would distrust such a person and this distrust is quite under- 

But if we ourselves admit that the appointment of a repre- 
sentative of the socialist countries to the post of United Nations 
Secretary-General would not create normal conditions for the work 
of this body, how can the Western Powers demand that we believe 
in the objectivity of their candidate, in this case Mr. Hammar- 
skjold? The neutralist countries also want to play their part in 
the United Nations; they want their interests to be safeguarded, 
and these legitimate demands of the neutralist countries must be 
taken into consideration. 


Therefore the only correct solution would be to set up an 
executive in which the three groups of states would be represented 
by three persons so that they could execute the decisions of the 
Security Council and General Assembly. 

Some people say that if the United Nations executive consists 
of three members, it will be paralyzed. But the task of the people 
appointed to the executive will be precisely to find such wise 
solutions as would secure peace, and this means that they must take 
into account the interests of all groups of states. If the decisions 
are made in the interests of only one group— for instance, if the 
decisions are made, as is the case now, in the interests of the 
imperialist states only— they will be unrealistic decisions. Let us 
take a sober view of the matter. The imperialist states have no 
practical basis for breathing life into such unilateral decisions 
because they are unable to impose their decisions by force. 

Those who allege that the Soviet Union advances proposals 
which break up the United Nations assess the work of the United 
Nations only from the viewpoint of one group of states. When 
we say that the interests of the first, second and third group of 
states are to be taken into account, they claim that this "destroys 
the United Nations." No, this is a just demand. And tomorrow, 
if not today, the peoples of the world will understand that the 
United Nations must take into consideration the interests of all 
states. The other way is the domination of one group of states, 
and this would not mean solution of problems but aggravation 
of international tension, which may even lead to armed conflict. 

Messrs. Delegates, sacred is the striving of all peoples to 
ensure peace on earth, and disarmament is the best guarantee of 
peace. It is precisely disarmament that all peace-loving people 
long for. It cannot be replaced by control over armaments without 
disarmament. If our disarmament proposals are accepted, we are 
prepared to accept any Western proposals on international control. 

And what is the meaning of the control over armaments which 
United States President Eisenhower offers us and of which Prime 
Minister Macmillan of Great Britain has also spoken here? Con- 
trol over armaments means admission of the necessity to have 
armaments in the future as well. But it is clear to everyone that if 
armaments exist, then at a critical moment all those who have 


arms in their possession will, willingly or unwillingly, reach for 
the holster, reach for these arms. 

At a critical moment those who have arms in their possession 
and follow the "from position of strength" policy will not ask 
the opinion of the Security Council or convene the General As- 
sembly to discuss the question of whether or not they should use 
their weapons; they are sure to use them. 

And if this happens, then, apparently, no Assembly would 
meet, because war with all its destructive consequences would 

Therefore, the best way to safeguard peace is to do away with 
the means of destroying people, that is, to do away with arma- 
ments. This is the Soviet people's sincere desire. We stated long 
ago, through the mouth of the founder of the Soviet state Lenin, 
that we are for disarmament. At this Assembly the Soviet Govern- 
ment has once again set forth its viewpoint and submitted its 
specific proposals for your consideration. 

Therefore, I insistently urge you to realize the exceptional 
importance of the disarmament problem for all peoples of the 
world, for our contemporaries and for the generations to come. 
The efforts of all countries and all peoples are needed to compel 
the governments of the countries on whom agreement depends to 
carry out general and complete disarmament in practice. Some 
people say that Khrushchev and Eisenhower should be locked up 
in some special chamber and kept there until they agree on dis- 
armament. This, of course, is naive. We can sit there as long as 
you like, but if the President, and especially the circles backing 
him have no desire to agree, then no smoke will rise from the 
chimney, as happens according to tradition when the Pope is 

It is all the more true since in this case we are not dealing 
with the question of electing the Pope but with the much more 
complicated question of disarmament and the prevention of the 
threat of war, a question of life and death for millions upon 
millions of people. 

It is said that after a disarmament agreement is reached, inter- 
national armed forces must be formed. In princij>Ie we agree with 
this. But the question arises: who is going to command them? 
The United Nations Secretary-General? But in such a case the 


decisions on these or other actions will depend on the ethical 
convictions, on the conscience of the United Nations Secretary- 
General. Is it permissible to make the destiny of millions con- 
tingent on the actions of one man occupying this post? We cannot 
rely on the conscience of the Secretary-General because everyone 
has his own view on conscience, his own understanding of ethics. 

The capitalist world has its own ethics, the communist world 
its own, and the neutralist countries their own. 

Therefore, with due consideration for the practical conditions, 
we must ensure a structure of the United Nations apparatus which 
would reflect the actual state of affairs in the world and express 
the interests of the peoples of different groups of states. There can 
be no disarmament, no international armed forces can be set up 
unless all three groups are safeguarded against the abuses of these 
armed forces. 

How can this be ensured? We want no privileges for our- 
selves, but we do not want others to have privileges over us. 
We want all to be on an equal footing. 

Therefore, if you gentlemen really want disarmament, if 
you want the international organs to work in this direction for 
peaceful purposes, then the United Nations apparatus must be 
reconstructed so that the United Nations Secretariat and the 
Security Council may reflect in their work the interests of the three 
basic groups of states, in order that the interests of all the United 
Nations member states may be protected. 

Some persons utter sharp words and bitter accusations here, 
alleging that Khrushchev is breaking up the United Nations. We 
reject these accusations and declare most definitely that the aim 
of the Soviet Union's proposals is to consolidate the United 

We want the United Nations to be indeed an organ in which 
the interests of all groups among the United Nations member 
states are taken into consideration and protected equally. The 
ensuring of world peace must be the bedrock of the entire activity 
of the United Nations. 

But the states which pursue their own narrow group interests, 
dominating the interests of other groups of states, are dealing a 
blow at the United Nations; and, in the final count, i£ they persist 


in carrying on their line, they will lead the United Nations to its 

If the machinery designed to settle the most important inter- 
national issues with due consideration for the interests of all states, 
if this machinery of the United Nations-the Security Council and 
the Secretariat-settle these questions to the detriment of the 
socialist or neutralist states, then naturally, these countries will 
not recognize such decisions and will rely on their own strength 
in defending the interests of their states, the interests of peace. 

This is the choice now facing the UN. Either we truly unite 
our efforts and do everything to consolidate the United Nations 
and thus ensure cooperation of all states toward peace, or the 
forces reflecting the interests and privileges of a group of imperi- 
alist states will continue to dominate the United Nations and its 
machinery, which will greatly damage the cause of peace and 
international cooperation. 

Those who support the policy of force and are trying to 
impose their will on others through the United Nations should 
clearly realize what place they occupy and what responsibility for 
the future they assume before the world. 

I would like in all frankness to say to the delegates of the 
current session; do not fall for the high-sounding phrases pro- 
nounced here by Mr. Hammarskjold and the representatives of 
colonial powers who are trying to justify the bloody deeds com- 
mitted against the people of the Congo by colonialists and their 

I would like to say that the United States representative who 
spoke here is defending the old, the rotten, that which is already 
collapsing. But neither the representative who spoke here for the 
United States nor others will succeed in propping it up: a dead 
man cannot be made to breathe. Colonialism has lived out its time. 
Our duty is to bury this stinking corpse as soon as possible and 
thus cleanse the atmosphere and create a better life for all the 
people in the world. 

Our sympathy, I repeat, is with those who are fighting for 
their freedom and independence! 

Some people say that Khrushchev is calling for rebellion. I 
am not calling for rebellion, because the question of rebellion 
against unwanted order in any country is settled by the people 


themselves. I only said that if the colonialists do not agree to 
grant independence and freedom to the colonial peoples, then the 
peoples of the colonial countries can do nothing else but rise against 
the shameful oppression, and all people of integrity must offer a 
helping hand to those who are fighting for their dignity, against 
robbery, against the colonialists. 

We extend a hand to all who still suffer in the chains of 
colonial slavery. If you regard this as a call to rebellion, I am 
proud of this and say that the freedom-loving peoples of the Soviet 
Union extend a hand of assistance to the peoples rising against 
the colonialists, for their freedom and independence! 

Esteemed Delegates, 

The question uppermost in the mind of all mankind now is 
whether the problem of disarmament will be solved, whether we 
shall achieve a solution of this vital question. 

We, on our part, firmly declare that we have come here with 
the most honest intentions and are willing to do our utmost to 
make peace prevail on earth, and not only peace but also friend- 
ship among the peoples. 

The Soviet Government will continue to work honestly to- 
ward this goal, as the sower works so that people may have a good 
harvest. He selects the best grains and throws them into the soil. 
When he throws the seeds into the soil, he is not sure that a good 
and favorable spring and summer lie ahead. No, he knows that 
the sprouts of these seeds may encounter droughts, storms and 
hurricanes. And it also happens that some grains just fall into 
rocky soil. 

But the man who sows cannot help working. He cannot fold 
his hands if the forces of nature operate against his efforts. He 
does not argue: is it worthwhile to work, to sow? Man lives and 
wants to live! And that is why he is tirelessly working to ensure 
life for the living, a better life for the peoples. 

At the bidding of our people, we have come here and are 
persistently sowing the seeds of peace. Perhaps not all our seeds 
will fall into fertile soil. On the contrary, I am even convinced 
that some of the seeds fall into rocky soil. But gentlemen, you 
have certainly seen how a powerful pine tree grows on what seems 
to be the most barren rocks. It is difficult to say what it thrives 
on. But it growsl 


We believe that if some of our seeds of peace fall into rocky 
soil, not all of them perish, because they are sound seeds, the 
seeds of human truth, and they are sown in the name of truth 
and human life. We are convinced that these seeds will grow, will 
push through the rocks to reach a nutritive medium and will 
develop into a strong and powerful tree of life. We believe in life 
and fight for it, for the triumph of peace on earth. 

We are convinced that the seeds of truth will reach the minds 
of the peoples to whom we are appealing; we are convinced that 
the people sowing sound seeds, the seeds of truth, the seeds of life 
will be rewarded for their labor by the reaffirmation of truth and 
by the victory of the forces of reason and peace over the forces of 
war. To achieve this one must tirelessly sow the seeds of truth, 
urge the people to fight for this truth, to fight against evil dry 
winds and storms. And if all fight, precisely all and not just a 
group of states, this truth will prevail and peace on earth will 
be safeguarded. 

Thank you for your attention. 

Ocfober 3, 7960 

Reply to Letter and Draft Resolution Received From 

the Heads of Government of Ghana, India, Indonesia, 

United Arab Republic and Yugoslavia 

On September 29th, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers 
of the USSR received the following letter from President Kwame 
Nkrumah of Ghana, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India, 
President Sukarno of Indonesia, President Gamal Abdel Nasser 
of the United Arab Republic, and President Josip Broz Tito of 

MR. chairman: 

We have the honor of informing you that in view of the 
existing tension in international relations and being confident 
that you, Your Excellency, the Government and people of your 
great power are striving ardently for the lessening of this tension 
and for establishing conditions for the consolidation of peace, we 
intend to submit for the immediate consideration of the current 
General Assembly session a draft resolution the text of which is 
enclosed herein. 


We hope that this effort of ours will meet with your sympa- 
thetic and favorable attitude. 

We avail ourselves o£ the opportunity to assure again, Your 
Excellency, of our high esteem for you. 

The Draft Resolution submitted by the five governments to 
the Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly 
read as follows: 

The General Assembly, 

Deeply concerned with the recent deterioration in interna- 
tional relations which threatens the world with grave consequences, 

Aware of the great expectancy of the world that this Assembly 
will assist in helping to prepare the way for the easing of world 

Conscious of the grave and urgent responsibility that rests on 
the United Nations to initiate helpful efforts, 

Requests, as a first urgent step, the President of the United 
States of America and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers 
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to renew their contacts 
interrupted recently so that their declared willingness to find solu- 
tions of the outstanding problems by negotiation may be progres- 
sively implemented. 

Chairman Khrushchev's reply to the President of Ghana read 
as follows: 


The Soviet Government and I personally as the Chairman of 
the Council of Ministers of the USSR have a high opinion of the 
motives by which you, as well as the President of Indonesia, the 
President of the United Arab Republic, the President of Yugo- 
slavia and the Prime Minister of India were guided in sending 
this letter and a draft resolution of the General Assembly to the 
President of the United States and myself, with expressions of a 
desire for the resumption of contacts between the President and 
myself, so that it would become possible to discuss questions which 
at present cloud the international situation, and to find solutions 
for these questions through negotiations. This message shows once 
again that the state of international relations is far from normal 
today and that the international situation, particularly the relations 


between the Soviet Union and the United States, evokes a legiti- 
mate feeling of anxiety among many states and leading statesmen. 

The Soviet Government has always been and still is of the 
opinion that unsolved international problems, including the prob- 
lems of relations between the USSR and the USA, must and can 
be settled peacefully through negotiations if the sides concerned 
desire to do so. Guided by this the Soviet Government insisted 
on the necessity of the discussion of such problems at the highest 
level, considering that most radical decisions, adopted through 
an understanding between the leading statesmen, are necessary 
for the improvement of the international situation and the solu- 
tion of disputed problems, particularly the disarmament problem 
which would put an end to the senseless destruction of tremendous 
material values and the wasting of the energy of nations for the 
production of the means of destruction. It is precisely for this 
reason that the Soviet Government insisted on calling a Summit 
conference and expressed the hope that this conference would lead 
to a radical change in the international situation and help to con- 
solidate peace and eliminate the contradictions existing between 

It is generally known what happened after an agreement on 
calling a Summit conference was reached. Just at the time when 
the peoples, including the people of the Soviet Union, were 
hopefully anticipating the fruitful results of this conference, the 
US Government right on the eve of the Summit embarked upon 
a path of treachery which assumed the nature of such aggressive 
acts as the violation of the state frontier of the USSR by the 
American U-2 military aircraft. It is common knowledge that the 
US Government through the President himself and the Secretary 
of State confirmed that these acts, as well as the subsequent viola- 
tion of the Soviet state frontier by the American RB-47 plane, 
were manifestations of a certain "deliberate policy" of the United 
States. It has also been confirmed that the US Government and 
President Eisenhower personally have no intentions of relinquish- 
ing this policy and still continue it to the present day. 

The US Government has not provided the least compensation 
to the Soviet Union which suffered damages as a result of a crude 
violation of its sovereignty by American aircraft. But on the con- 
trary it has many times affirmed the above-mentioned treacherous 


policy in spite of the fact that this policy constitutes an outrageous 
and unprecedented violation of the very foundations of interna- 
tional law and of the sacred principle of respect for the sovereignty 
of states. Thus, the American Government has placed itself in 
a position which apparently makes it difficult for it to embark 
upon the path of honest negotiations with the Soviet Union. Due 
to this policy the US President has also personally placed himself 
in a position where it is apparently hard for him to establish 
contacts with the head of the Soviet Government, contacts which 
could produce positive results. 

It goes without saying that any attempt to advance some pre- 
liminary conditions in establishing such contacts by a party which 
has taken to perfidy is more evidence that the present US Govern- 
ment has no serious intentions of seeking a settlement of contro- 
versial questions splitting the states, through negotiations based 
on mutual respect for the interests of the parties in these negotia- 
tions. This also shows what little respect the US Government has 
for the aspirations of other states to contribute their share in easing 
tension in the relations between the big powers. It stands to reason 
that the position of two such powers as the USSR and the USA 
is of paramount importance for the further development of inter- 
national relations. However, the active role of other states, big 
and small, and of the United Nations Organization as a whole 
in settling outstanding problems can by no means be under- 

Responsibility for the situation which has arisen lies with 
the US Government and only with the US Government. I am 
deeply convinced that every statesman capable of objectively 
evaluating this situation cannot but draw the conclusion as to 
who is putting obstacles in the way of a resumption of contacts 
between the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States 
of America for the settlement of questions causing tension in the 
relations between countries, mentioned in your appeal and in 
the draft resolution. 

The situation as we see it today is that the US Government, 
far from denouncing the above-mentioned actions, even in spite 
of the fact that President Eisenhower personally declared in Paris 
that he had given instructions to refrain in future from sending 
US planes inside the Soviet Union while he remained in the 


White House, is pursuing the announced aggressive course of 
foreign policy. Only this can explain why in his speech at the 
General Assembly and in his reply letter to your appeal he main- 
tains silence on the question of the sending of American U-2 
warplanes inside the Soviet Union and raises the question about 
the American RB-47 plane flight which, as we all know, took 
place after the breakdown of the Summit meeting and after the 
President's statement on the discontinuation of such flights of US 
planes inside the Soviet Union. 

It is obvious that if the US Government continues in future 
to follow the aforementioned policy, then under these conditions 
not a single self-respecting state, showing concern for the integrity 
of its sovereignty and its security, can have faith in statements 
by the US Government of its desire to improve relations between 
the USSR and the USA. This fully refers to the disarmament 
problem as well, if we take into account that the attitude of the 
USA toward disarmament questions is obviously aimed at breaking 
up any fruitful talk on disarmament and proceeds not from the 
necessity of disarmament under strict international control, but 
from the establishment of control over armament, i.e., the setting 
up of an approved system of international espionage under the 
UN flag. 

The Soviet Government not only lives in the past but looks 
to the future as well. Whatever tense relations there may be be- 
tween the Soviet Union and the United States of America, these 
relations can be improved if the government leaders rise above 
one or another of personal prejudices and feelings of hostility, 
and are guided by the great responsibility resting on their shoul- 
ders for the destinies of the world. It is the profound conviction 
of the Soviet Government that the present worsened state in rela- 
ions between the USSR and the USA can be overcome. However, 
this requires a clear admission of what caused these relations to 
deteriorate. What is needed is a clear admission that it was caused 
by the unprecedented perfidious actions of the US Government 
which took the road of committing provocative, aggressive acts 
against the Soviet Union. In other words, we are ready to establish 
contact and start negotiations with the President and the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America, having in view that the 
US Government will find the courage to condemn the above- 


mentioned actions, which caused Soviet-American relations to 
worsen, and will manifest goodwill in bettering these relations 
in deeds. 

Such are the considerations of the Soviet Government, which 
it deemed necessary to express in reply to the letter addressed by 
the leaders o£ five countries to the President of the United States 
and to me. 

N. Khrushchev 

New York, October 3, 1960. 

Chairman of the Council of Ministers 
of the USSR 

Similar replies were forwarded to the Prime Minister of India 
the President of Indonesia, the President of the United Arab Re- 
public, and the President of Yugoslavia. 

October 7, I960 

Meeting With Members of 
United Nations Journalists Association 

On October 1, the United Nations Journalists Association Rave 
a luncheon for the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers 
N. S. Khrushchev. " ' 

The President of the Association, Mr. Paul Sanders, introduced 
Chairman Khrushchev. 

paul sakders: Mr. Chairman, when we sent our invitation to 
the Baltika, we did not expect you to be so generous with press 
conferences. We erroneously thought that your acceptance of our 
invitation would give us certain advantages. Now we see that this 
might have been interpreted as a kind of monopoly to which you 
certainly could never agree. 

I must say that your treatment of the press can be described 
in no other way but as most democratic. 

Having had the opportunity of watching you for several weeks 
at General Assembly sessions and having heard many stories about 
you, I believe that there is much in common between you and the 
press. They say that you are an emotional man. r But, Mr. Chair- 
man, emotions are a source of news to us, and being human, we 


are not devoid of emotion, no matter how hard we try to be im- 
partial. You like publicity as much as we do, and this is why we 
like you. 

But more than anything else we know you as a great propa- 
gandist of the ideas of peaceful coexistence. We are glad to greet 
you among us-among those who made coexistence a practical 
reality. We represent different countries and have different biog- 
raphies, we belong to different political creeds. We write for papers 
and magazines or work for radio stations representing the broadest 
variety of views. But a supreme spirit of comradeship reigns among 
us. We do not argue on those questions which are likely to divide 
us, and if there are not too many extraordinary and evening meet- 
ings, we often discuss various questions among ourselves in an ef- 
fort to better understand what is the cause of these difficulties. 
You will thus see that coexistence is not a problem to us, even if it 
is a very difficult problem for the world. 

But we simply do not know whether you and the others will 
make a success of the idea of peaceful coexistence on a world scale 
or how you will do that. We hope that you will explain this to 
us along with other questions. 

In conclusion I should like to say in Russian, so far as my 
pronunciation permits, Dobro pozhalovat (Welcome here). 

Gentlemen, I give you Chairman Nikita Khrushchev. 

Khrushchev: Mr. President of the Association, dear gentle- 
men, comrades, friends, 

I am glad to meet you journalists who cover the work of the 
United Nations. I often meet journalists. Yours is a difficult but a 
noble profession. The press can help the peoples to understand 
correctly everything going on in the complex modern world. But 
the press can also help to disorient the peoples if it is used for the 
selfish ends of specific circles. 

You are very busy nowadays. The Fifteenth Session of the 
United Nations General Assembly is the most significant session 
since the United Nations was founded. At this session we shall 
have to consider such major international problems as disarma- 
ment and the complete abolition of the disgraceful colonial sys- 
tem. We attach exceptional importance to a successful, agreed 
solution of these problems. All the peoples are interested in dis- 


armament because this is the only way to avoid new, devastating 

I need not tell you that all these and other questions can be 
solved, provided there is good will and desire for cooperation 
among all countries, on the basis of the principles of peaceful 
coexistence, abstention from aggressive acts and observance of the 
standards of international law. 

In present-day conditions it is ridiculous to try to impose any 
decisions upon other countries by using a mechanical majority in 
the United Nations. It is essential that the United Nations take 
into account the interests of all existing groups of states, both 
those who belong to Western military alliances and the socialist 
and neutralist states. The creation of an appropriate structure for 
the working bodies of the United Nations could help to improve 
the activities of the United Nations. 

I urge all of you to use the force of the pen, your abilities, 
your influence to create a climate helpful to the activities of the 
United Nations; I urge you to write truthfully. May a truthful 
and realistic picture of the world today and of the problems con- 
fronting all of us arise before millions of your readers. 

Thank you for your attention. Now I am ready to reply to your 

* * # 

Pauline Frederick (National Broadcasting Company): Mr. 
Chairman, do you consider that there is any hope for progress in 
disarmament even before a relaxation of differences is achieved 
and before the removal of the fear and mistrust existing between 
the United States and the Soviet Union? 

khrushchev: To abandon hope for agreement on disarmament 
would, I think, be tantamount to dooming the world to another 
war, would be tantamount to an admission of impotence by those 
people who must think about peace and create the conditions of 
peaceful coexistence. That is why I am now optimistic about the 
possibility of reaching agreement on disarmament, and I have de- 
clared more than once that such conditions exist. 

It is difficult to judge how far these conditions have now ma- 
tured because the current session of the UniteS Nations General 
Assembly coincides with a "stormy period" in the life of the 


American people. I am referring to the presidential elections. 
Everyone in the United States is now engaged in this, everything 
is subordinated to this; and the leaders on whom a solution of 
the disarmament problem depends consider only which presiden- 
tial candidate will be elected. This is unfortunate because one 
leader or another might become president; this is of no decisive 
importance for international problems for this is the domestic 
problem of a single country. Well, now everything in the United 
States is subordinated to the elections, and we must reckon with 
this. But this is a transient feature. 

We believe that everything must be done to safeguard peace, 
that one must not give up hope but continue a stubborn struggle 
for peaceful coexistence, for disarmament, for safeguarding an en- 
during peace throughout the world. But the main thing in the 
struggle for an enduring peace is disarmament, and not control 
over armaments as Mr. Eisenhower, the President of the United 
States, suggests. I repeat, though I have spoken of this many times, 
I shall go on repeating until everyone understands that disarma- 
ment, the destruction of weapons is the only way of avoiding war, 
while control over armaments means the preservation of arms. 
And if arms are preserved, even under control, those who own 
the arms can always use them for aggressive purposes whenever 
they want to. Therefore everyone who really wants peace must 
strive not for control over armaments but for disarmament, the 
destruction of weapons under the strictest, most extensive and 
penetrating international control. 

In this context I should like to clarify another question. I 
should like to correct the report published in American newspa- 
pers on my meeting with Mr. Macmillan. The newspapers reported 
not quite accurately on the results of my meetings and conversa- 
tions with Mr. Macmillan, the Prime Minister of the United 

We really discussed disarmament, the possibility of reaching 
agreement on this question. Mr. Macmillan said that one must not 
be hasty about this question, must wait and see until better con- 
ditions are created for confidence between countries. Only then 
could agreement on disarmament be reached. Mr. Macmillan be- 
lieves that about five to ten years might be required to create a 
climate of confidence and that for the time being it would be 


better to set up some technical committees of experts to study 
these questions. To put it in a nutshell, he suggests moving as 
slowly as many insects, snails and other slow-moving organisms do 
on earth. 

If the question of disarmament is made to depend upon relax- 
ation of tension and establishment o£ confidence, as some would 
have it, I shall tell you that this is a most dangerous approach. 
This is tantamount to arguing about which came first, the chicken 
or the egg. Which came fust, the chicken or the egg-I believe this 
question has not been solved to this day. Therefore on the ques- 
tion of disarmament, too, to talk about what to begin with— the 
establishment of conditions for confidence or disarmament-is 
futile. My position is that we must begin with the main thing, 
that is, disarmament: we must destroy armaments, establish con- 
trol to see that no one arms himself. This will create the best 
conditions for sincere and fraternal relations among all peoples. 

Now I should like to say something about the time needed 
to achieve confidence. If we take a period of five or ten years- 
such a period has been mentioned-this contradicts the statements 
of the Western circles themselves, since they say that it is essential 
to accelerate agreement on disarmament. Is it not a fact that the 
longer the agreement is delayed, the greater will become, with 
every passing year, the number of countries possessing atomic weap- 
ons and rockets? And if there are more states armed with atomic 
hydrogen bombs and rockets, the difficulties of reaching agreement 
on disarmament will become even greater. It would seem that, 
following from this Western logic, we must speed up disarmament! 
but Mr. Macmillan says that we must wait five or ten years. This 
means that now we must doom these negotiations to futility. So 
the idea seems to me that I, a grandfather, will start these talks 
and my grandchildren will finish them! This is a chain reaction 
for which all mankind will have to pay. 

I must say that I have many grandchildren and I hope that 
my grandchildren will follow their grandfather, but I still want 
to do everything for the grandchildren so that they may live under 
peaceful conditions, may thank us for having, upheld peace. 

chairman: The next two questions are similar and therefore 
I have decided to read them simultaneously. 


Joseph newman (New York Herald Tribune): Would you ac- 
cept the results of a two-thirds majority vote in the United Nations 
to settle the question as to whether or not Mr. Hammarskjold 
should remain in office as United Nations Secretary-General and 
to decide on your proposal for a three-man executive? 

arne torren (Expressen); Mr. Chairman, you said in your 
speech in the Assembly on Monday that you would draw the nec- 
essary conclusions from the existing situation if the Secretary- 
General does not resign. Mr. Hammarskjold replied that he would 
not abandon his post. Could you tell us what conclusion you have 
already drawn or going to draw? 

Khrushchev: These two are related questions but they are not 

Regarding Mr. Hammarskjold's statement that he will not step 
down from his post, you have heard what I said in my speech: 
if Mr. Hammarskjold possessed gentlemanly qualities, he would 
step down from his post. But I was not sure whether he had such 
qualities, and in this respect Mr. Hammarskjold fully justified my 
opinion of him. 

Now regarding the decision of the question by a two-thirds 

Even if such a decision as you speak about were made by a 
two-thirds majority, even if it were made by a majority of 99 per 
cent, we would not agree with such a decision anyhow. 

The principles of majority which you determine by two-thirds 
in solving disputable issues are quite acceptable within a country 
when domestic— political, economic and other— questions are decid- 
ed. But in this case we are dealing with a complex international 
question. This question is decided by countries belonging to the 
United Nations. But this is not a parliament but an international 
forum which has been established in order to solve questions in 
such a way that its decisions would not harm any state belonging 
to this forum. 

If you like, I shall present this question in a more naked form. 
Suppose the following "ideal" thought were to occur to representa- 
tives of member states of the United Nations: let us decide to 
liquidate the socialist system in the Soviet Union. What would 


happen if all, except the representatives of the socialist countries, 
were to vote for this? What would we have replied to this? We 
would have said, as is our Russian custom in such cases: "Out with 
you! You have adopted such a decision and you may live with it; 
as for us, we have lived under our socialist system and will go on 
living under it. And if anyone interferes— yon will excuse me for 
such an unrefined but most figurative expression-we shall give 
him a good punch in the jaw! 1 ' 

Gentlemen, a very serious question has been raised here. That 
is why I should like to dwell on it further. I beg you to ponder 
this question thoroughly. A majority of votes in the United Na- 
tions, which consists of imperialist, socialist and neutralist states, 
is still held by countries of the imperialist, colonial bloc. We, the 
socialist countries, are today in a minority in the United Nations. 
But this situation might change. Today we are in a minority, but 
tomorrow, as we warn you, you will be in a minority. Hence, you 
must not abuse a temporary majority in the United Nations in 
order to impose decisions on the minority, because, I repeat, this 
is not a parliament. We are discussing here not the domestic prob- 
lems of one country or another, we are discussing international 
problems with due respect for sovereignty and non-intervention in 
the affairs of other states. This must be borne in mind, this must be 
the point of departure. Then a correct solution of the problem will 
be reached. 

Besides, I beg you to ponder seriously our proposal concerning 
the structure of the United Nations. We do not demand a situa- 
tion which would give us an equal number of seats with the 
Western countries in the Security Council and the United Nations 
Secretariat. We do not ask for a majority, we only ask for our 

The world has a population of three billion. The socialist 
countries represent more than one billion of the population. This 
means more than one-third. But we are not petty and we will not 
weigh everything on scales up to the precision of a gram. We 
accept one-third. The imperialist, colonial powers have less than 
one-third of the world population in their countries, but we tell 
them: "You take a third too." The neutralist countries account for 
more than one-third, and we tell them: "You take one-third too." 


Thus, all three groups of states would be represented in the 
United Nations— and this is an international organization— the 
capitalist, the countries of monopoly capital, the colonial powers; 
the socialist countries, the countries of the really free world, the 
freest of the free; and the neutralist countries. And all would have 
their share, their one-third. This would create equal conditions 
for all three groups of states. This would make it possible to solve 
international problems without prejudicing any group of states. 
Is this not sensible? 

We want no privileges but our share to which we are entitled. 

If you want to subordinate us to yourselves by a majority and 
to compel us to settle issues under unequal conditions, you will com- 
pel us to uphold our interests not by voting in the United Nations 
but by acting outside the United Nations, i.e., by relying on our 
strength, on our might. And this, as you understand, already leads 
to an aggravation of relations. 

Our proposals contain a reasonable starting point. We want 
a relaxation of international tension, we want peaceful coexist- 
ence, we want peace and friendship. You, on the other hand, strug- 
gle for domination over us, over the socialist countries and over the 
neutralist countries. Hence, you stand on the positions of continu- 
ing the "cold war" and aggravating relations. Ponder this, gentle- 
men! If you do not ponder this today, if you understand this 
wrongly, I hope you will understand this tomorrow, because there 
is no other way out. 

That is how the question stands: either we shall develop our 
relations along the road of eliminating international tension and 
the cold war, strive for peace and friendship, or we shall continue 
the line of aggravation which might end God knows where, be- 
cause every aggravation of tension and the cold war might turn 
into a hot war. 

He who wants peace and friendship among the peoples must 
consider the interests not only of his country and his group of 
countries, he must also consider the interests of the socialist coun- 
tries, the neutralist countries. 

We do not want to impose our socialist system upon you. Go 
on living as your conscience dictates, but do not interfere with our 
living according to the dictates of our conscience. Let us not inter - 



O M 


^ ?d 


^ ?d 


H O 


!Z! ?d 

• • 

U •• 


!Zi CO 

O rt 


o o 

o ^ 

3 a 

3 3 

> a 

2 CD 

U h 

.. hh 


; o 


fere with the neutralist countries either, so that they may live as 
their conscience dictates. 

We do not ask anything for ourselves at the expense of other 
states. We only want equal conditions for all, we want to continue 
working for the common cause of ensuring world peace. 

Stanley burke (Canadian radio): You said that the main ob- 
jective of the Western countries in the Congo was to retain control 
over raw materials available there, in particular over uranium. How 
can you prove this statement, considering that uranium, which is 
Katanga's main product, is extremely abundant in the world and 
large uranium mines are being closed in Canada, for instance? 
khrushchev: Sir, you want to impose upon me your idea that 
the colonialists seize colonies and destroy people in order to help 
them to end their earthly existence as soon as possible and to 
expedite them on their way to paradise. 

To me it is entirely a secondary matter, what the colonialists 
are after-uranium, cobalt or the devil himself. What they want 
is to plunder the colonial peoples, to profit at their expense, to 
exterminate the peoples of enslaved countries. When the Belgian 
colonialists came to the Congo, it had a population of more than 
20 million. And now, when the colonialists have left after a stay 
of many years, the population, far from increasing, has diminished 
almost by half. Why? Do Negroes bear fewer children? No. They 
bear perhaps even more children than Europeans. But they are 
placed in unbelievable, inhuman conditions, and that is why their 
children do not survive, and die; and those who do not die in 
childhood, do not live long— their life expectancy is not as long 
as that of people living under normal human conditions. 

Or let us take the Australians. Mr. Menzies spoke at the 
United Nations General Assembly. He could have told the story 
of the conquest of Australia, he could have told how colonialists 
hunted down and killed human beings like wild animals. They 
exterminated nearly the entire indigenous population. And this 
is what they call "civilization"! The peoples will remember such 
civilization, and hatred for the enslavers will live through the ages. 
We are against the policy of the coloniafists. With all our 
energy we protest against this policy and we shall do everything 


in our power to see the early end of this cursed, obsolete, slavish 
system of colonialism, to see that all peoples gain freedom and 

richard hottelet (Columbia Broadcasting System): What 
have you achieved in New York, in your opinion, both in the 
United Nations and outside it? 

Khrushchev: The woodcutter measures the quality and quan- 
tity of his work by a definite yardstick. In the past the Russians 
had the sagene;* now it no longer exists. In the past I worked 
as a fitter and I had definite standards by which to measure my 
labor. My father was a miner, he also had his yardstick. Then I 
became a political leader. I am not a woodcutter, or rather, I 
am both a woodcutter and a politician. I think it is impossible 
to measure the quantity and quality of my work, as the result of 
a brief attendance at the United Nations, by a definite yardstick. I 
say only one thing— he who believes that our efforts were made in 
vain does not understand everything that is going on. 

We have sown here good seeds, the seeds of peace and friend- 
ship; we have exposed falsehood and sown the seeds of truth. And 
no matter how loudly some people are now crying to silence the 
voice of truth, their voices are not strong enough for this. Truth 
cannot be killed! Truth will triumph. When will it triumph? 
—well, one must have patience. 

We are not discontinuing the struggle for truth. We have 
started this struggle and shall continue it. Victory will be ours. 
Please remember, truth will triumph because a lie is short-lived; 
people will see through the lie, no matter how skillful the make-up 
is, no matter how skillfully it is presented by cameramen, photog- 
raphers, newsmen, artists— the features of a lie will show through 
the make-up and evoke repulsion, while the truth will attract the 
hearts of the peoples. Truth is with us. Truth will triumph. 

simon molele (Tunisian radio): You here in New York and 
other Soviet leaders in Moscow had official talks with the leaders 
of the provisional government of the Algerian Republic. This 
has been interpreted as de facto recognition of the Algerian Gov- 
ernment by the Soviet Government. 

•Discarded unit of measure equal to 2.134 meters. 


Would you not like to comment on this and tell us, in par- 
ticular, what aid you intend to render the Algerian people in 
their struggle for independence? 

khrushchev: You have understood correctly that from our 
meetings and talks it follows that we recognize de facto the pro- 
visional Algerian Government. I consider that not only we but 
many countries of the world recognize it, and in the first place 
it was recognized by President de Gaulle of France who entered 
into negotiations with representatives of this provisional Algerian 

I have already replied to similar questions and said that we 
Soviet people sympathize with all colonial peoples fighting against 
colonialists, for independence. How then can we exclude such a 
great people as the Arab people who are fighting for their inde- 
pendence, for their freedom? We welcome their struggle and we 
rendered, and shall render them every assistance we can, any 
assistance that will be useful to the Algerian people in their strug- 
gle for independence, for freedom. 

ferrara (Unita): What do you think about the vote on the 
resolution of the five neutralist nations? 

khrushchev: We have stated our attitude toward this resolu- 
tion in my letter to its authors, which has been published. I think 
that it is hardly necessary to return to this question now. 

Arthur Fletcher (World Wide Press Service Agency): In view 
of the fact that the Soviet Union calls in every way for the advance 
of the underdeveloped countries, will it increase its contributions 
to the United Nations assistance program as the United States has 
promised to do? 

khrushchev: We have repeatedly stated our views on this 
question. We take part in rendering assistance to underdeveloped 
countries through the United Nations, but we prefer, so long as 
no agreement on disarmament is reached, to remain at about 
the previous level of rendering assistance through the United 
Nations. When agreement on disarmament is reached, there will 
be every possibility, as a result of the disarmament, to save funds, 
and hence we could increase assistance to underdeveloped coun- 
tries by agreement with other countries. But we prefer to render 
assistance chiefly on a bilateral basis, i.e., to reach agreement with 



underdeveloped countries, and on the basis of this agreement 
to render them disinterested assistance. 

Now, as regards President Eisenhower's statement on assistance, 
I should think that if the imperialist countries returned even a 
tenth of what they plundered in the underdeveloped countries— 
and they took everything from them— if they returned even a 
tenth of the share, even this would be little. But I do not entertain 
the hope that assistance on the part of the imperialist countries 
will be increased, for it is one thing to talk and another to act. 
Capitalism can only plunder. It cannot render effective assistance 
because this contradicts the essence of capitalism. 

Therefore, Messrs. Journalists, know how to read but also know 
how to understand what you have read. I tell you this because my 
experience in life prompts me to do it. Take Britain as an example. 

What a wealthy country it is. Yet how poor is Indial How 
wealthy is France, yet how poor are the African countries plundered 
by France. How wealthy is Britain, yet how poor is Ceylon. 

Is poverty the national feature of those countries? No. It is a 
social feature, a political feature. The robbers came, plundered 
the peoples of the enslaved countries, and then told them, "You 
should be grateful for our plundering because we brought you 
civilization." Well, you know, as our saying has it— "God defend 
me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies." The 
same applies here: God defend us from such civilization, and we 
undoubtedly can cope with this civilization ourselves and conquer 

Besides, India was at a higher level when Britain began en- 
slaving India. Britain relied not on civilization but on the force 
of the robber, the force of the stronger. And this is called justice! 
And now they want to assume a noble air. This, you know . . . 
though perhaps I have said enough as it is. 

s. gunzburg (France Press Agency); The organ of the Chinese 
Communist Party, the newspaper Jen Min Jik Pao again sup- 
ported the opinion that war is inevitable as long as the capitalist 
society exists and that the atom bomb is a "paper tiger." Would 
you like to comment on this statement? 

khrushchev: I haven't read that paper. You have read it and 
I must comment on itl Can you imagine my position? Since you 


have read it, it is for you to comment. I will comment when 
I read it. 

don hwa: (South Korea?! News Agency) : Mr. Chairman, won't 
you tell us something about your planned visit to North Korea? 
What is the objective of your visit there now? 

Khrushchev: I do not understand, gentlemen, why there is 
such a merry reaction to this question. Apparently because this 
is a gentleman from South Korea. I do not see any reason for 
such merriment and I have the greatest respect for this gentle- 
man's question. 

You see, South Korea had Syngman Rhee. We have de- 
nounced him and the regime which had been there under him, 
although the present regime in South Korea does not differ from 
the old one. Today there is one regime and tomorrow there will 
be another, but the Korean people remain; and we believe in 
the good inherent in every people, including the Koreans. It is 
a freedom-loving people which fought heroically against the 
Japanese occupation. But the people in the south of the country 
found themselves in a worse position than in the north. The North 
Koreans found themselves, both geographically and politically, 
in a better position than the South Koreans, but we believe that 
the South Koreans will catch up with the North Koreans. 

You are asking when I shall go to the Korean Democratic 
People's Republic? Right now we are making final arrangements 
with Comrade Kim Ir Sen concerning the date on which we shall 
be able to go to Korea, since I stayed in America longer than 
I expected. This will be announced later on. 

But I should like to convey through you, Mr. South Korean 
Journalist, the best wishes to the people of South Korea, if you 
dare to transmit my kind wishes. We should like to see the Korean 
peoples themselves determine the social and political system of 
South Korea. We wish the people of South Korea independence 
and complete freedom, we wish the entire Korean people to 
be the masters of their destiny and of their wealth. 

james boyd (Sunday Star) and other correspondents: Has the 
Soviet Union any proposals for stimulating the activity of the 
United Nations Outer Space Committee? 

khrushchev: We set forth our proposals some time ago and 
we are willing, if our wishes are taken into account, to participate 
in the committee. We regard the United States proposals as lop- 
sided for they do not take into account the interests of the social- 
ist countries. The United States wants to be in command in the 
committee. If you want to be in command not in the committee 
but in outer space, please do— there is enough place there for all. 
You be in command in it and we shall be in command in it. 

Thomas Hamilton (New York Times) : In your talks with 
Mr. Macmillan you suggested, it seems, a summit meeting and 
a special session of the United Nations General Assembly early 
next year, after the inauguration of President Eisenhower's suc- 
cessor. Could you not tell us in greater detail when, in your opin- 
ion, this meeting should be held and what it should consider? 

khrushchev: Yes, this was a correct report. When I conferred 
with Mr. Macmillan, and I conferred with him twice in New 
York, we touched upon these questions. 

Mr. Macmillan assured me that a summit meeting would 
take place. I stood on the same positions which we have set forth 
already in due time: we are in favor of a summit meeting in 
order to settle the issue of concluding a peace treaty with Ger- 
many and to solve the problem of West Berlin as a free city 
which ensues from this. But I also raised other questions. 

In my talks with Mr. Macmillan I said that perhaps we 
should consider the question of a peace treaty with Germany 
at a peace conference of all countries who fought against Nazi 
Germany, and conclude a peace treaty there. He who wants to 
sign it would sign. 

I suggested this with a view to accelerating the signing of 
a peace treaty with Germany because the solution of this ques- 
tion has been delayed too long. Mr. Macmillan assured me that 
a meeting of the heads of government of the Great Powers would 
take place and that at this meeting we should be able to discuss 
this question. If this is so, we shall stand by the word we gave 
after the Summit Meeting in Paris was torpedoed by the United 
States of America last May. 

The same correspondent raises another question, about a 
special session of the United Nations General Assembly. Indeed 



I have raised such a question in my conversation with Mr. 
Macmillan. Mr. Macmillan did not deny that such a session 
would be useful. I have already told you about this. 

Now, as before, we consider that disarmament is the ques- 
tion of questions. The present session, apparently, lacks special 
conditions for achieving useful results on this question. First, 
we must take into account the fact that the discussion of this 
question in the United Nations coincided with the peak of the 
presidential election campaign in the United States. Under these 
conditions America, apparently, cannot now take an active part 
in the discussion of this most important question. This is one 

Secondly, some explain this by the fact that there are many 
questions which must be discussed at the plenary session of the 

We have always considered disarmament the prime task, a 
question which prevails over all other questions. That is why, 
in view of the above considerations, it will apparently be useful 
to call a special session of the General Assembly and to discuss 
at that session only one question— that of reaching agreement on 
disarmament and establishing international control over disarma- 

I have spoken on this question not only with Mr. Macmillan 
but with statesmen of other countries as well. When will that 
be expedient? I should think that we could gather in February 
or March. Some have mentioned April because that suited them 
better. It would be a good thing to convene such an Assembly 
in Europe. Eighty per cent of the countries territorially tend to 
Europe because of their geographic location. That is why we 
would prefer the special session to meet in Geneva. But should 
the participants in the session want to meet in the Soviet Union 
and extend such an honor to us, we shall be happy to receive 
the Assembly in Moscow or Leningrad. The most normal condi- 
tions for its work would be created there. 

I believe that people who really want agreement on dis- 
armament and peace ensured-and this must hi the goal of all- 
must sympathize with us and help us to achieve such a solution. 


henry shapiro (United Press International): Will the status 
quo be preserved in Berlin until the next summit meeting? 

khrushchev: The question has been put in too abstract a 
manner. First, will there be a summit meeting? From the way 
Mr. Shapiro put the question it follows that I must give an assur- 
ance that the status quo will be preserved. But no one can tell 
in what year and on what date the meeting will take place. 
That would mean to remain perpetually without a peace treaty 
with Germany. If this question is understood as we understand it, 
namely, that the summit meeting will take place after the pres- 
idential elections, we shall strictly abide by our word. But if we 
see that there is no desire to have a summit meeting, the coun- 
tries whose position is that a peace treaty is essential will finally 
meet and sign a peace treaty. And that will be the end of occupa- 
tion status for West Berlin. 

chairman: I should like to wind up with a question which is 
outside the sphere of politics. This question has been asked by 
Mr. Murray of the Irish Times: Can you definitely say that you 
will orbit a man around the earth this year? 

khrushchev: Do you want to be registered as the first vol- 

correspondent: Together with you. 

khrushchev: My age and my weight do not meet the standards. 

correspondent: This also applies to me. 

khrushchev: I do not know and that is why I speak in this 
way. I did not want to offend you. And there is nothing offensive 
in it. I can only tell you that we have many people who want 
to fly into outer space and they are making intensive preparations. 
Everyone wants to have the honor to be the first to fly. 

We regard such a flight as very important, as having great 
scientific importance. That is why sporting methods are no good 
here. And to fix a day and send a man into outer space precisely 
on that day means to have a sporting approach to this highly im- 
portant question. We do not set ourselves such a task. We shall 
send a man into outer space when the appropriate conditions 
have been created for this flight, for the life of the space traveler 
must be protected. I cannot say when this will materialize since 
this is, first of all, a matter for scientists. It does not take much 


wisdom to send a man into outer space; the main thing is to 
return him. 

I heard the esteemed chairman say that this question was 
the last. Therefore permit me to say a few words in conclusion. 

Above all, I should like to thank our esteemed chairman, the 
President of the United Nations Association of Journalists, and 
to thank you all for having entertained my friends and myself 
at such a good lunch. It is your right to make an appraisal, but, 
in any case, I tried to return your hospitality by conscientious 
work. I should like also to thank you, gentlemen, friends, com- 
rades, for your attention and to wish you the best of success 
in your work. 

Let us pool our efforts in the struggle for peace. I am a Com- 
munist. I shall reveal no secret if I say that there are Communists 
here beside me; I see them. They are present here. But the 
majority here are not Communists. However, we must agree that 
we are all human beings, and man living on earth wants to live. 
I repeat, let us pool our efforts toward one goal— the struggle for 
peace. Questions pertaining to the social and political order of 
society are the domestic affair of each people, but the cause of 
world peace is the common cause of the peoples. 

So let us concentrate our attention and efforts on achieving 
the common goal of ensuring peace on earth. And in order to 
ensure peace on earth, to prevent any accidents, an agreement 
on disarmament must be reached by all nations. If we achieve 
this, gentlemen, I am confident that we shall glorify our names 
through the ages and our children and grandchildren will say: 
"Our fathers and forefathers were not so stupid after all. For all 
their quarrels, for all their arguments and bickerings, they under- 
stood the main thing, they prevented war and ensured peace." 

That should be enough for every man with a conscience— his 
conscience would be clear. 


October 9, I960 

Television Interview with David Susskind 

David Susskind, producer and television commentator, invited 
Premier Khrushchev to be his guest for an interview on "Open 
EMX, _ his regular Sunday evening program on WNTA-TV The 
Premier accepted, and the program took place at 9 P.M. on Sun- 
day, October 9. Originating in New York, the program was simul- 
taneously relayed to six major cities in the United States It has 
been rcbroadcast on many other television channels and radio 
stations in the United States, as well as in Australia, Canada and 
the United Kingdom. It was also re-televised in full in the Soviet 

HUB. The transcription of the interview which follows o-ives 
Premier Khrushchev's answers in direct translation from the Rus- 
sian not necessarily as Mr. Viktor Sukhadrev, his interpreter 
translated them for the television audience. 

The dialogue that follows took place before the program 
went on camera." e b 

susskind: When you go to sleep, do you feel that the destinies 
of mankind depend largely on you, on your attitude on your 
moods? Tell us, do you sleep calmly being aware of this? 

Khrushchev: I always sleep calmly. 

susseiso: And what about the sense of tremendous responsi- 
bility to a still unborn generation? 

Khrushchev: You see, we do our utmost to avert war. Our 
country is engaged in peaceful construction. Just take a look at 
what we are doing. 

susskind: I should like to very much, and I'd like especially 
to take a look at the organization of communications in your 

Everyone is watching you today and many people believe that 
you will not reply to my questions; but I don't believe it. 

Khrushchev: It depends on what questions you ask. I shall 
reply to any reasonable question. 

susskind: Yes, this means yes, good, to Americans. And when 
they want to say-excellent, they say-O.K! 


khrushchev: I think that both the questions and the replies 

will be keyed toward an improvement in the relations between 
our countries, that is, between the Soviet Union and America, 
among all the countries of the world. 

If there are any questions which violate that principle I shall 
not reply. I may not reply directly to all questions but I shall not 
evade replies. Thus, I shall certainly give detailed replies to your 

susskind: Mr. Khrushchev, I should like to assure you before 
the beginning of the broadcast that the questions I shall ask are 
in the minds of many people. 

khrushchev: I beg you to ask the kind of questions which 
will help to improve our relations. 

susskind: I repeat, we have a good word "yes"; that's the 
English for "da." 

khrushchev: I also would like to hear "da" from you. 

susskind: It is quite incomprehensible to me how a man who 
has such a sense of humor can inspire the fear of war. We've been 
taught that a sense of humor is the most positive quality. 

khrushchev: That is right. If I inspire fear in you, this means 
that you think badly of me and of my country. 

susskind: You don't inspire fear here, but you do when you 
deliver speeches, for instance, at the United Nations. If we could 
remain here, the world would be in complete safety. 

khrushchev: You are mistaken. 

At this point the official broadcast began. 

susskind: Good evening. This is Open End. My name is David 
Susskind. Our guest tonight is Premier Nikita Khrushchev of the 
Soviet Union. The gentleman alongside of Premier Khrushchev is 
his official translator, Mr. Victor Sukhadrev. 

A brief introductory note about tonight's program. When I 
first heard or read that Premier Khrushchev was coming to the 
United States to attend the Geneal Assembly of the United Na- 
tions, I wrote the officials in New York of the Soviet Mission. I 
requested his appearance on this program to answer questions 
that are deep in all our minds, about the present situation in the 
world. I also requested the opportunity of having crack newspaper 
experts, familiar with the Soviet-American issues to accompany 


me on the program to ask questions. The reply was that Mr. 
Khrushchev, and this after several meetings with his official dele- 
gation, that Mr. Khrushchev would answer questions from one 
interrogator. I was asked to submit questions in advance. I refused 
to do this, and Mr. Khrushchev's officials agreed that the questions 
would be unrehearsed and spontaneous. 

Tonight's questions and answers are not rehearsed, have not 
been submitted in advance. In just a moment, we will begin this 
program, whose main concern is the pursuit of information. In a 
free republic it is our job, I think, never to trammel inquiry, but 
to try to know more, to fmd out facts, to get answers. That is the 
effort of this program, that is its intent. In just sixty seconds, we 
will begin the interview with Premier Khrushchev. 

susskind: Mr. Khrushchev, in Mr. Macmillan's address to the 
United Nations General Assembly, he said, among other things, 
quote, "The sponge of public opinion is almost saturated with 
the persistent Hood of propaganda. It can pick up no more. Or- 
dinary people all over the world, in their present mood, are begin- 
ning to tire of the same conventional slogans and catchwords." 
The people of our country and the people of the world, I think, 
are very concerned about a host of issues. I hope tonight's questions 
and answers will supply them with answers they desperately seek. 

The first, Mr. Khrushchev: From personal observation and 
from the reports of your officials in this country, you must know 
that our people are dedicated to peace with honor. You must 
know too, that ours is a representative government, elected by our 
people and fully responsive to them. Why then do you continue 
to perpetuate the myth that the American people are well-inten- 
tioned, but that their government is imperialistic, warmongering 
and deceitful? That fact is, and I think you know it, that the 
American people, and the American government, whether Repub- 
lican or Democrat, are one and the same with no interest or desire 
to violate any other sovereignty, or extend its territories or to 
colonize any nation in any part of the world in any manner 

khrushchev: The question you have just posed is not a simple 
one and might provide a pretext for misinterpretation, with re- 
gard to the reply, but I will certainly do my best to answer with- 
out evading the essence of the question. 


With regard to the social systems existing in our countries, 
with regard to the state structures and our governments, I would 
not like to add anything to what you have said, or to comment in 
any way. With regard to your words to the effect that your govern- 
ment is responsible to the various institutions, state institutions, 
existing in this country, I would merely like to say in this context 
that you are evidently not very well-acquainted with our system. 
Because the fact is that our country has the most democratic sys- 
tem; all the various functionaries are elected, and all are respon- 
sible to the people, directly to the people. And the people who 
are elected to the various legislative and executive bodies of the 
Soviet Union are all men of labor, they are workers, peasants or 
intellectuals. I myself am a living example of this. I was a worker 
in my youth, my father was a worker and my grandfather was a 
peasant. From an early age, I started to work and it was as a result 
of my diligence, of my desire to serve my people, that the people 
responded by electing me to this high office. But I would not like 
to enter into any argument with regard to whose government is 
more representative or more democratic, because if we were to 
enter into such a dispute, I would start praising my state, and my 
government, my constitution, and you would start praising yours, 
and that would only lead to an aggravation, and would not serve 
any useful purpose. We like and will live under our system, and 
you will live under yours. You like your system— that's your busi- 
ness; we like ours, so don't hinder us from living our way.* 

susskind: 1 am sorry that I don't understand what you're 

khrushchev: The interpreter will translate for you. 

susskind: With apologies to Mr. Khrushchev, he has not an- 
swered my question. I am. not comparing our governments. I 
asked him why throughout the world, he continues to draw a 
real cleavage between our people and our government, saying that 
our people are peace-loving, but our government is warmongering. 
Our government is exactly coincident with the temper of our 
people. They are one and the same, and they are both peace-loving 
so long as peace is accompanied by honor. 

*The last two sentences were not translated 
interrupted with his next comment. 


for Mr. Susskind because he 

khrushchev: You were in a little too much of a hurry, because 
1 only just replied to the first part of that question you posed me. 
And, after the translation of that first part is finished, I will go 
on to reply to the second part. I will certainly do so. 

Don't be in a hurry. Though you are a fiery man and I am 
no longer young, I can still compete with you in replying. Wait a 
minute, or do you want to outstrip me thanks to your age! First, 
you are trying to involve me in a discussion regarding your govern- 
ment. I do not think I should enter into such a discussion because 
it is your government after all, and it is for your people to judge 
that government. If I were to try to do so, that could be construed 
as an attempt at interfering with the internal affairs of the Ameri- 
can people, and I would not like to be misunderstood on that 
point. But now I would like to give a reply. 

We say that the government of the Soviet Union, which I 
head in my capacity of Chairman of the Council of Ministers, is 
the most peace-loving government in the world. You say, and I 
believe you, that the people of the United States are peace-loving 
people, and that the government of the United States is likewise 
a peace-loving government: then, I would just like to raise one 
question. Recall that last year I was in this country as a guest o£ 
your government. It gave me pleasure to accept President Eisen- 
hower's invitation to come here, and I came with good intentions, 
to establish personal contact with the President, or rather to re- 
new these contacts, because we had met before. The purpose of 
my journey was to promote better relations between our peoples 
and our governments. I also wanted to establish good personal 
relations with the President. And we did have some very good 
talks. The President is aware of this. I recall that we sat and 
talked and had coffee. He addressed me with the words, "my 
friend," in English. And he said, learn the words, Mr. Khrushchev, 
they mean, and he had them translated for me, and I said very 
good. And allow me also to call you "moi drug," which is "my 
friend" in Russian. And everything went very well, indeed. I was 
seen off with honors. When I came back I reported to my people 
that conditions were becoming propitious for us to have good 
relations with the United States of America. This is the dream of 
our people, of the Soviet Government. Because, after all, if such 
good relations exist between the United States and the Soviet 


Union, this means that there will be peace between our two coun- 
tries and in the whole world. 

But what happened later? What did your government do? Vir- 
tually on the eve of the Paris Summit meeting, the United States 
Government sent a U-2 spy plane into the Soviet Union. And then 
after that they sent a second plane, an RB-47 reconnaissance plane. 
We shot down this second plane, too. We said it was not good to 
do such things; we asked, is this the way to show friendship? Just 
imagine what would have been your reaction if we had sent our 
plane into the United States, let us say, over New York or Wash- 
ington, for example. What would have happened then? You 
would have judged that Khrushchev came to your country, par- 
took of American bread and salt, said some fine words, and then 
in return sent a spy plane over your territory. Would you have 
regarded this as a friendly or unfriendly act? Well, we too reacted 
with the opinion that the American Government was insincere, 
because the sending of an aggressor plane does not help improve 
our relations, does not promote the cause of peace, but on the 
contrary kindles passions and aggravates relations. The continua- 
tion of such flights might lead to war. 

And so, judge for yourselves. Who is it that stands for peace, 
for friendly relations, and who is it that does not want friendly 
relations, but aggravates the situation by his actions and brings 
the world to the brink of war? 

I am now replying not only to you, but to all the people who 
are listening tonight. We are now facing the tribunal of public 
opinion. We are honest. We gave our word that we would be 
friendly, and we are true to our word— we do nothing to harm 
America, But you have sent your spy planes to us. 

sussrind: Mr. Khrushchev, the U-2 incident was part of both 
our countries indulging in various intelligence operations to pro- 
tect their securities. The best answer to the U-2 incident is that 
the President has suspended all such flights. Let us not beat a 
dead horse tonight. Is it not possible that relations between our 
two countries could immediately improve, if you as a statesman 
and head of your country, do, or w 7 ould do two things. Bury the 
U-2 incident, and stop inflaming it, and number two, submit the 
RB-47 incident to the international arbitration and decision re- 
quested by the United States. 


khrushchev: You see, any relations, no matter how sharp 
they may become, lose their sharp edge in time. No matter how 
stormy the ocean may become, sooner or later that storminess sub- 
sides. After a storm there is always a calm. And so it will evidently 
be with the U-2 incident. But I do think you have an incorrect 
understanding on this matter, and I should like to deal with that. 

(At this point in Mr. Sukhadrev's interpretation, Mr. Susskind 
asked for an interruption for a station break. Premier Khrushchev 
had actually gone ahead, however, and the remainder of his re- 
marks are given herewith.) 

It would be a good thing if the President had cancelled those 
flights. But is that really so? In reality, they have not yet been 
cancelled. I will deal with that a little later. The best thing would 
be not to have sent any U-2 and RB-47 nights at all. You say that 
the U-2 incident is a dead horse. But no, it is not a dead horse. If 
your spy planes continue to fly over our country, we shall shoot 
them down, and that might mean the outbreak of war. If you 
allow yourselves to infringe on our sovereignty and invade the 
boundaries of our country we shall be forced to take retaliatory 
measures. And you must agree that this smacks of an armed con- 
flict. Furthermore, after the President had said that he had can- 
celled the flights, there was the RB-47 flight. This looks more 
like a repetition of flights rather than a cancellation of them. 

I will tell you more. Your military or intelligence agencies 
planned to send over one more spy plane before my departure for 
the General Assembly session. We learned about this and I said 
to your Ambassador in Moscow, Mr. Thompson: 

You are preparing to send another spy plane over here. We 
are aware of that. You want to send it at an altitude of 25,000 
meters. We are ready, and if you do send it, we warn you that the 
results of this affair will be not too good. The plane did not come. 
I believe the United States Government cancelled this flight. 

I agree with you on one point— let us not kindle passions over 
this question. Now you are asking us to agree to international 
arbitration on the RB-47 plane. But we shall not agree to this. 
What you want is for our internal, domestic state affairs to be 
settled by international arbitration of some kind. The best and 
only arbitration in this matter is not to send spy planes over each 
other's territory. Why do that? Let us be friends, let us do no 


harm to each other, let us not violate the sovereignty of other 

(Station Break) 

khrushchev: Do you have a couple of mattresses somewhere? 

susskind: Sure, I'll get you a mattress. So that the public will 
understand, because we've been off the air the last few minutes, 
I said that we should both practice brevity, I in my questions, and 
Premier Khrushchev in his answers, or we will have to stay the 
night. He then asked if we could be brought several mattresses. 
May we have the answer to that— 

khrushchev: But, I already said, that if you will provide the 
mattresses, I'm ready to be here all night. 

susskind: All right, we'll send for the mattresses. Will you 
please give us the answer to the question? The question was, it 
seems like a year ago, that the U-2 incident was beating a dead 
horse. The best answer to that is that our President, and our 
government has suspended those flights. Could not Mr. Khrushchev 
make an affirmative and definite and important move toward 
better relations between our two countries, by first, burying the 
U-2 incident forever, and not be resuscitating it always, and 
secondly, by submitting the RB-47 incident to international arbi- 
tration as requested by the American Government. 

(Mr. Sukhadrev here continued with his interpretation of the 
Premier's remarks as given in the previous speech.) 

susskind: It is not a domestic issue. You claimed that your 
territory was violated by one of our planes. We denied such alle- 
gations. It is a matter between two sovereign countries in dispute. 
The United Nations is clearly a forum for arbitration of that 
dispute. Isn't your refusal to submit the dispute, which is not a 
domestic dispute, but an international dispute, isn't that sympto- 
matic of your hard, cold war policy? 

khrushchev: Well, kind sir, where do we stand? You sent a 
U-2 plane and then denied that you had sent it. You said that you 
did not send the plane. It was only after we furnished material 
evidence, and showed you the pilot who was shot down near 
Sverdlovsk, only then did you admit the fact^hat you had sent a 
spy flight. And yet not only admitted it, but asserted that it was 
your right to do so and that you had the right to send planes in 


(he future too. And so an RB-47 made its appearance in our skies. 
Naturally, we shot it down. It would be better policy for you to 
observe a rule which is illustrated by a passage from a play by 
the Russian writer Griboyedov, his play, "The Wit Works Woe": 
"Couldn't you select a more remote path for your walks?" I should 
like to repeat this in regard to flights by American planes: couldn't 
you select a route more remote from our frontiers for your flights? 
This would be a more useful course to follow, and then no con- 
flicts would spoil our relations. For we want to live with you in 
peace and friendship. 

susskind: (to interpreter as Khrushchev was speaking) Is 
there progress in that answer? 

khrushchev: All our replies contain progress. 
susskind: Not tonight. 

khrushchev: Just wait a minute. You suggested that the 
United Nations should arbitrate in the case of the RB-47 plane. 
We saw a fine example of United Nations arbitration in the Con- 
go. But we are not the Congo! We are the Soviet Union. There- 
fore we ask you to respect our sovereignty, and if it is not respected, 
we shall be able to protect it properly ourselves! 

susskind: I feel that an iron and implacable will lies behind 
your smile. 

khrushchev: Logic and truth lie behind it. 
susskind: Then we are speaking different languages. 
khrushchev: I think that the word "logic" sounds similar 
in English and Russian. 

susskind: I think we have seen an excellent illustration of the 
United Nations in action in the Congo. 

khrushchev: I would not like to return to the discussion of 
that question because the discussion was fully treated in my state- 
ments before the United Nations General Assembly. I therefore 
would not like to return to the matter and take up the time of 
our esteemed listeners. Whoever wants to know my point of view 
on that question can read my speech, which was published in one 
American newspaper. 

susskind: May I ask you a question to which you can answer, 
yes or no? Will you, in the interest of immediate improvement 
in American-Soviet relations, submit the RB-47 issue to arbitration? 
khrushchev: No, 


susskind: I taught you "yes." 

khrushchev: I'll gladly repeat that word, when you ask me 
the appropriate question. May I say, will you stop flying into the 
Soviet Union, and provoking conflicts? If that question were asked, 
I'd say very good, and you would, I trust, say, "yes." 

susskind; We have stopped. But we can't agree on it tonight. 

khrushchev: Let me shake your hand. If you really have 
stopped such flights and the President stands by your statement, 
very good, I shall reply "yes." 

susskind: In his speech before the United Nations Assembly 
President Eisenhower said we would like to see a universal plebi- 
scite, in which every individual in the world would be given the 
opportunity, freely and secretly, to answer this question: "Do you 
want the right to self-government?" In his speech before the Assem- 
bly, your colleague, Mr. Gomulka, of Poland, approved of this 
proposal, saying he favored seeking the opinions of all peoples on 
problems closely linked with those of the right to govern their 
own country. Do you or will you agree to a worldwide plebiscite 
to be conducted as suggested by President Eisenhower, under 
United Nations auspices, in which all peoples would be polled 
on their views on self-government? 

susskind: (to the interpreter) Could you translate as Mr. 
Khrushchev goes along, would that be in order? 

(Interpreter asks Khrushschev.) 

khrushchev: I don't know how that can be done; it seems 
that American technology is not up to that yet. You come along 
to us, we'll do it immediately. We'll give you a simultaneous 

A very good question. 

susskind: I hope he has a good answer. 

khrushchev: A very exact answer. Tell me please, how old 
are you? 

susskind: Thirty-nine. 

khrushchev: You're a young man. 

susskind: I'm aging. 

khrushchev: I've got children that are older. And therefore 
I say that you evidently don't have a very .good knowledge of 
history. After our great October Revolution, military landing 
parties were sent into our country by the United States, Britain, 


France, Germany and Japan, and they imposed a Civil War and 
intervention upon us. That was a nationwide plebiscite on the 
kind of system the peoples of our country wanted to have. We 
fought, that is we conducted the plebiscite, for four years. The 
White Guards, the generals of the Tsarist Army— 
susskind: But I didn't ask— 

khrushchev: When that is required, we'll come to that. It's 
not required now. 

They (the White Guards) captured Siberia, the Ukraine, 
Byelorussia, and they came up to Tula-they were within 150 
kilometers of Moscow. But the Russian people, the Ukrainian 
people, the Byelorussian people-all the peoples of the Soviet 
Union, took a broom and swept all the interventionists into the 
ocean, the Americans, the British, the Japanese, the Germans, all 
the vermin. And they said: "Socialism will be built on our soil." 
And socialism is developing very well indeed in our country. So 
your President is late in raising this question before the peoples 
of our country. The same question was raised as far back as 1918 
by President Wilson and we gave our reply. Then in 1941 the 
Germans and the Italians, the fascists, decided to verify that plebi- 
scite, so they perfidiously attacked us, launched war against the 
Soviet Union. We smashed them, and cleared our Soviet land of 
the invaders. Now our people are successfully building commu- 

If you understood deep in your heart what socialism and 
communism really were, why nobody could tear you away from 

susskind: Oh, yes they could. 

khrushchev: -as if it were a favorite dish of yours. But you 
don't understand that socialism, communism is the most noble 
teaching in the world. And if anybody tries to impose upon us 
another such referendum, we will not try to evade or dodge such 
an attempt, we will just sweep away all who venture to try it. Our 
land is sacred and sovereign, and it's only the peoples of the Soviet 
Union themselves that have the right to govern their land, and 
administer their affairs. We recognize that you are certainly en- 
titled to that same right, and do not interefere in our affairs and 
give us that right also. Why should you try to poke your nose 


into our garden? Have you not enough things to do in your own 

susskind: You're baying at the moon.* We know the history 
of the Russian Revolution, we do not want a plebiscite in the 
Soviet Union. We believe with all our might that there are many 
subjugated peoples in Eastern Europe. We ask that a plebiscite 
be held, not in your home country, not in the Soviet Union, but 
in many of the countries of Eastern Europe, who are now within 
the Soviet orbit. Let those people announce freely and openly 
their preference for self-government. It's not necessary to cite the 
October 1917 Revolution of the Communist Party in Russia, we're 
talking about 1960, and a free plebiscite, without troops of any 
country in the nations of Eastern Europe, and Africa, and Asia. 

Khrushchev: Is such an expression as "barking (baying) at 
the moon" regarded as normal polite conversation in your coun- 
try? We regard it as rude. After all, I'm old enough to be your 
father, and, young man, it is unworthy to speak to me like this. 
You look pleasant enough but you do not express yourself quite 
courteously. I do not permit an attitude like that towards myself. 
I did not come here to "bark"— I am the Chairman of the Council 
of Ministers of the world's greatest socialist state. You will there- 
fore please show respect for me. If you do not want to, then do 
not invite me for an interview. There must be courtesy, but you 
are accustomed to prod and knock everyone about. Ours is the 
kind of state which will not allow itself to be ordered about. 

susskind: I'm sorry. 

khrushchev: So you don't mean that a plebiscite should be 
held in the Soviet Union? 

susskind: No. 

khrushchev: You have European countries in view? 

susskind: The European countries, Asia, Africa, Latin Amer- 
ican countries. 

khrushchev: So, I can reply to that, that all these countries 
have sovereign governments, and it is up to the people of those 
countries and their governments to decide on that question. This 
has nothing to do with me whatsoever. You evidently simply came 
to the WTong address. Regarding your statement that these nations 

*The Russian equivalent for "baying" is "barking." "Barking," therefore, is 
the word as Khrushchev had it interpreted for him. 


of Europe are captive, that I would not even wish to reply to, 
because that truly, such an opinion is merely rubbish* which 
really should be thrown out of your head. You need a new ap- 
proach, and you should really understand history in the way that 
it is being written today by the peoples, otherwise you will have a 
very backward view on present-day issues. 

susskind: Does the phrase "garbage thrown out of your head," 
is that good form? 

khrushchev: Well, there can be a correct understanding, and 
a wrong understanding, such is the fact, and I don't think there 
is anything offensive in that, but if you think that there is some- 
thing offensive, and you want to take me up on that, well, I 
certainly, though I don't think there is anything offensive in it, 
I can take back that "rubbish" (garbage)— 

susskind: Oh, I think it would be charming. 
We must pause for just a moment for another opportunity 
for the radio and television stations throughout the country to 
identify themselves. 

(During the recess, Susskind apologized for the expression 
"baying at the moon," saying it was not regarded here as 
offensive. Khrushchev replied that nevertheless the ex- 
pression was impermissible. Susskind again asked if 
"throw garbage (rubbish) out of your head" was quite 

susskind: On October 7th, a few days ago, you said, "We shall 
uphold our interests outside this international body, in regard to 
the United Nations, by relying on our strength. This could lead 
to nothing else but a new exacerbation of the situation." My ques- 
tion is, your proposal to act outside the United Nations, and your 
intentions to force a solution of the West Berlin issues, involve 
the great danger of a nuclear war. 

Do you truly believe that West Berlin, the German peace 
treaty, and your proposal to reorganize the United Nations, are 
worth the potential of a nuclear war, in which both sides face 

khrushchev: Your question is so involved that it could give 
a person a nightmare. But I shall try to reply. In the first place, 

*The Russian word, "musor," used here by Khrushchev, is best translated as 
"rubbish." However, the interpreter translated it for Mr. Susskind as "garbage." 


I certainly remember what I said at that press conference, and 
what I said was that if the United Nations is constituted in the 
same one-sided way that is now the case, trailing in the wake of 
the United States, then the United Nations will lose the respect 
and confidence of all countries that are seeking solutions to out- 
standing issues. In that case, they will not turn for assistance to 
the United Nations, but will rely on themselves to find solutions 
to these questions. We of the Soviet Union are of the opinion that 
if steps are made to humiliate us and subjugate us in the United 
Nations, we can certainly do without the United Nations, as we 
have done for many centuries, and that means that if, and I stress 
"if," any state encroaches upon our sovereignty, we will uphold 
that sovereignty by and with all the strength that we have at our 
disposal. And if any state threatens us with a war, we will not be 
afraid, and we will uphold the independence of our country, our 
great achievements. 

Do you remember the basis of our criticism of the United 
Nations' structure? After all we are not seeking any privileges for 
ourselves; we are merely seeking equal conditions in the UN for 
the socialist countries, the countries tied up in the United States- 
led military blocs and the neutralist countries. Is there anything 
unjust in this? No, it is a perfectly just proposal. If this is not 
done, it is not only we, but the other countries too who will stop 
respecting the United Nations, and after that the United Nations 
will simply die, it will cease to exist. (At this point Susskind started 
to interrupt, but Khrushchev gestured that he had more to say.) I 
have not yet replied on the point about West Berlin. I want to 
reply to that. I am an honest partner and I will reply without 
waiting for your supplementary questions on this point. 

You say that we want to solve the problem of West Berlin 
outside the United Nations. The German question is precisely 
outside the United Nations sphere. As you know, this is a vestige 
of World War II. The question of a peace treaty with Germany 
and of West Berlin concerns the countries that fought against 
Nazi Germany and not the United Nations. This is recognized by 
the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom and 
the Soviet Union. We have no differences here, 

Let us now turn to West Berlin. What do we want to achieve 
on the German question? We want to conclude a peace treaty 


with both Germanies, Soon 16 years will have elapsed after the 
end of the war, yet we have still no peace treaty. Do you regard 
this as normal? Every one who wants to normalize the situation 
after the war will draw the conclusion that a peace treaty must be 
concluded with Germany. And that is what we want. 

The conclusion of a peace treaty with both German states, 
and evidently there is no other way out, will also settle the issue 
about the occupation regime in West Berlin. We regard it as log- 
ical that West Berlin should have its social system— the capitalist 
system prevails there. We do not want to intervene in the affairs 
of West Berlin. Let its population live under capitalism as it does 
now, let it have self-government; let West Berlin be linked with 
all countries with which it wants to have relations, but the occu- 
pation regime in West Berlin must be liquidated. 

So what do we want? We want peace. We want to remove the 
remnants of World War II, so that they may not threaten to touch 
off a third world war. You say that this might cause a nuclear war. 
This I do not understand. So according to you, while we want to 
sign a peace treaty with Germany the United States wants to fight 
with us over this. Is that so? We consider that the United States 
government will be reasonable. Even if the United States threatens 
us with war we shall sign the treaty anyhow. We do not believe 
that the American people would decide to start a third world war 
because of the signing of a peace treaty with Germany. This is 
madness. This is absolutely impermissible. 

We, on the other hand, do not threaten anyone. Far from 
that, we want to do away with the remnants of World War II, to 
quench all the embers which are still smoldering, to do everything 
possible to ensure lasting peace in all the world, to live in friend- 
ship with all peoples— American, French, German, with all peoples. 
You want to live under capitalism— this is your business; go ahead. 
And we want to live under communism— this is our business. You 
don't understand our position correctly. I believe that when you 
come to understand it correctly, you will welcome our position 
because it is the only right and reasonable one. 

susskind: America and her Western Allies will never start a 
war, I am sure. My question related to the fact that the issue of 
West Berlin and German peace treaty has got to be settled by 


negotiation and not by threat or use of force, or anything that 
would blow both parts of the world up. 

khrushchev; Now those are certainly words which I like very 
much, and that is very reasonable. We do not intend to advance 
any threats of any kind. Our only desire is that the United States, 
Britain and France and other nations, should understand the 
necessity for a peace treaty with the two Germanies, and that all 
these countries should get together to sign a peace treaty, and 
thereby do away with the vestiges of the Second World War. We 
not only want to prevent war, we also want to establish conditions 
for good, friendly relations among all countries. We want to live 
in friendship and brotherhood with the American people, and 
with the American Government too. 

susskind: May I ask you this? Is not your charge, Mr. Khrush- 
chev, that the United States controls the majority of the United 
Nations really an insult to the free and independent nations that 
compose its membership? As a matter of record, most of the free 
nations have voted differently from one another, and the United 
States, on many occasions. But on the other hand, there is no 
recorded moment when the Soviet bloc of eight nations has ever 
voted differently from the Soviet Union. 

khrushchev: Evidently, you are not quite accurately in- 
formed. Representatives of many countries that vote for the pro- 
posals of the United States later come to us and clarify their 
position and say that "we are wholeheartedly with you but due 
to our position, we cannot vote contrary to the United States; we 
are compelled for the time being to vote for the United States 

susskind: But they are free and independent nations who con- 
stitute the membership of the United Nations and are not under 
some magic, or fear influence of the United States, they are voting 
their separate consciences, are they not? 

khrushchev: I have respect for your words, but when you 
analyze the proceedings of the United Nations, you will change 
your views. Unfortunately, pressure is brought to bear in the 
United Nations on the delegates of countries that are politically 
and economically dependent on the United States. But this will 
soon be ended. The time will come when the peoples will rid 


themselves of United States pressure and then the United States 
will be in a minority at the United Nations. 

susskind: We must pause briefly while the radio and tele- 
vision stations identify themselves. We will return in one minute 
and ten seconds. 

(Station Break) 
(During the exchange above, Khrushchev was handed a note which 
apparently informed him that the intermissions were being used 
for advertisements of Radio Free Europe. During the recess, he 
said to Mr. Susskind— who apparently had not known of the ad- 

"I have been told that anti-Soviet slander has been screened 
here during the recess. Why do you do this? You are afraid of 
communism, afraid of the truth! Well all right, let them screen 
it. We are not afraid. This will only make us stronger.") 

susskind: Mr. Khrushchev, you said in reply to another ques- 
tion of a United Nations correspondent, the question was, "what 
do you feel that you have accomplished here, inside and outside 
the United Nations, since you've been here?" You said, "we have 
sown good seeds of peace and friendship. We have exposed lies, 
and sown seeds of truth, and no amount of effort will succeed in 
killing this truth." Isn't it really a fact that the net of what you 
have done since you have been here, is that you have attempted 
to cripple and impede the United Nations by urging the removal 
of Mr. Hammarskjold, and the substitution of a three-man secre- 
tariat, which would hamstring the United Nations. You have at- 
tempted to remove its headquarters out of New York. You have 
attempted to capture an important block of neutral votes and 
isolate the United States, and her allies; you have labelled the 
Western powers as colonialists in an impassioned speech. You have 
attempted to resell your total disarmament plan without any con- 
cern for our very deep and legitimate fear about inspections and 

khrushchev: You yourself have said that we should be brief, 
but you have outlined a whole program there. What am I to do, 
reply until about six o'clock in the morning? 

susskind: No, all I ask is do these activities— 

khrushchev: I see that you want to put me in a position 
where you ask questions but give me no opportunity to reply. 


You want to announce all your questions and then say, "The In- 
terview is over." That is how it was handled with Comrade 
Mikoyan. But it's no good. Our interview is drawing to a close. 
Ask me a specific question and I shall reply. 

susskind: Do your activities at the United Nations since you 
have arrived, do they add up to sowing the seeds of peace and 
friendship and the seeds of truth? 

khrushchev: That is the only reason I came. I have no other 
aim in life than to serve the truth, to serve my people— the work- 
ers, peasants and working intelligentsia. I should like to express 
my appreciation to you for the opportunity you have given me 
to speak to the population of New York and of other cities of the 
United States. In replying to your questions, I have sought to 
contribute to a correct understanding of our policy and our aspi- 
rations on the part of your people, Our main aspiration, the 
aspiration of the Soviet people and the Soviet Government, is 
to live in peace and friendship with all peoples. And we should 
like very much to see this desire reciprocated by the American 
people and the American Government. I think that sooner or later 
we shall be friends, because friendship would enable us to develop 
our economy and our culture, whereas war would only bring us 
disaster. That is why we are for peace and friendship. I want to 
thank all who have been listening to me and to ask them to do 
everything in their power to improve relations between our 

We in the Soviet Union have everything we need. Ours is a 
rich country and a prospering economy. We are striving to raise 
the living standards of our people to a high level, and our pros- 
pects are exceptionally good. We need nothing from other peoples 
except friendship. We have everything necessary to satisfy the re- 
quirements of the people. That is why we extend a hand of 
friendship and peace to the American people, and we should like 
the Americans to reciprocate. 

I thank you once more, dear friends! May everlasting peace 
reign on our earth, and may there be no more wars. Long live 
friendship between the peoples of the Soviet Union and the 
United States. 

susskind: May I ask you one more queftion. When do you 
intend to return to the Soviet Union? 


khrushchev: I am taking a plane for the Soviet Union on 
Thursday at the end of the day. 

I say to all those who want to go to the USSR and see how 
the Soviet people live: welcome. Our people are very hospitable, 
you will see and feel that for yourselves. (To Mr. Susskind) I in- 
vite you to come. 

susskind: We are separated by more than language. I am con- 
vinced tonight that words do not mean the same things in our 
respective languages, nor is the logic or the thinking easy to fuse. 
Your answers to so many of the questions, Mr. Khrushschev, I sub- 
mit, respectfully, did not deal specifically with the issues. I had 
hoped tonight that we could uncover a lot more new information 
that would give us hope for peace tomorrow. 

khrushchev: In replying, I did everything I could to dispel 
the misconceptions that you have in regard to the policies of the 
Soviet Government. And I am sure that we will achieve under- 
standing, despite the difference in the languages if we agree on 
one thing— not to interfere with one another's internal affairs. 
Each people decides on the political and social structure to be 
established in every country, and let that be an internal matter 
for that country to decide. If that rule is strictly adhered to, we 
know that there will be no issues that will divide us, and prevent 
us from establishing friendship. You say you want peace and not 
war; we want peace. You say you want friendship; so do we. 

susskind: Splendid words. 

khrushchev: We always live up to our words. As regards 
questions of war and peace, we are always for peace and shall 
never start a war. 

susskind: Categorically, you will never start a war? 

khrushchev: Categorically, we shall never start a war. Re- 
member my words; not only shall we not start a war, but we want 
to live in friendship with you. (Is what we are saying now being 

susskind: (Yes.) I feel better about that. Will you now make 
deeds square with doctrine and preachment? 

khrushchev: We have always done so. Who has instilled in 
you such a wrong understanding of our policy? 

susskind: The facts. History. Observation, and very close 


Khrushchev: If you really study history and observe, the situ- 
ation will not be hopeless. Gradually you will come to understand 
us well and we will understand you. They can only hear what 
you're saying. (Khrushchev had removed his microphone.) How 
tricky you Americans are. (Laughing) 

susskind: No, no, who could not hear you? Your projection 
is incredible. I would like to ask you whether some of your mer- 
curial temperament, the humor and the rage, while here in New 
York, is that the true Premier Khrushchev personality, or is that 
something of an acting job? 

_ khrushchev: We reply to kindness with kindness. Even an 
animal if you pat it will understand kindness on your part, but, 
if you try to drag it by the tail, then it shows its teeth. If you 
come to us in friendship, we will open up our hearts. If you send 
a U-2 spy plane, we shoot it down. 

susskind: Every time we pat you, you bite us. 

khrushchev: It's you who are biting us. The sending of a 
U-2, that means biting. 

susskind: We are not sending any U-2's, that's history. That's 
over. We seek peace and friendship with honor. 

khrushchev: All right, let's put an end to it. Even after a 
war, a peace is declared, and wc have not been fighting you. We 
were allies in the last war. We want to be friends with you now, 
too. We don't ask anything from you, we only want friendship 
and peace. 

susskind: We cannot fight. Negotiation must be the way, how- 
ever painful, however protracted. 

khrushchev: We are in favor of negotiations, of peace and 
friendship. Come to visit us in the Soviet Union, have a look, 
spend some time there, size us up and you will see what a wonder- 
ful peace-loving people we have. Many Americans who have vis- 
ited us have written about our country, and I have read some of 
their impressions. It must be said that very few of them distort 
the situation in our country; many of them write truthfully about 
us, and we are happy that they are doing so and are helping to 
establish friendly relations between our counties. What do I want 
with war? I have so many grandchildren-even a great-grand- 


susskind: But, all of your words, since you arrived in the 
United Nations General Assembly, all of your statements have 
been of an agitating nature, calculated to intensify the cold war 
and drive a deeper wedge between us. Don't call us colonial im- 
perialistic warmongers-this is not first a fact, and secondly not 
calculated to make life possible between us. 

khrushchev: Are you against the colonial system? Let's shake 
hands on that then. We have submitted a declaration to the Gen- 
eral Assembly to have the colonial system eliminated. If you are 
for this too, then we agree on this question. 

susskind: We have. Since World War II, 1945, some thirty- 
seven nations have been freed, voluntarily by the Western powers. 

khrushchev: But there still exist colonies, don't there? There 
still are people languishing under colonialism, let us free them. 

susskind: Would you grant immediate freedom to any colony, 
despite its degree of illiteracy, poverty, technical and administra- 
tive incompetence, in spite of its total unpreparedness, and lack 
of responsibility? 

khrushchev: Yes, we are in favor of the complete freedom of 
every nation. We have fifteen independent Union Republics in 
the Soviet Union and any one of these republics can secede from 
the Soviet Union if it so desires. If the Ukraine wants to secede, 
it can do so; so can Georgia, Armenia, any one of the Republics. 

susskind: I want to ask you this question. When you talked 
to Macmillan, you insisted that a plenary special session of the 
United Nations Assembly be held somewhere in Europe, at which 
ninety-nine nations would discuss the issue of disarmament. When 
a three-nation conference on nuclear suspension and testing could 
not agree, when a ten-member nation conference could not agree 
on disarmament, how could a ninety-nine nation conference ac- 
complish anything except another rampaging forum for propa- 

khrushchev: My dear sir, sometimes even two persons meet 
and cannot come to terms simply because one of them doesn't 
want to. The Soviet Union is ready to sign a treaty on disarm- 
ament and on the destruction of weapons. Let the United States 
propose control over the destruction of weapons and over dis- 
armament, and a system of such control. We shall accept what- 
ever is proposed, because we are in favor of genuine control; it is 


to our mutual advantage. But your President speaks not about 
disarmament, but only about control over armaments. So it hap- 
pens that we not only speak different languages, but we speak 
about different things. 

susskind: The peoples of the world are fearful of the climate 
that exists throughout the world, they insist on the Western side, 
that there be adequate inspection and controls leading to dis- 
armament. Why is that totally unacceptable? 

khrushchev: We are in favor of control and inspection. But 
what should be controlled? If there is no disarmament, there is 
nothing to control. What do you want, after all, to control the 
work of our government? You don't need to do that, we can do 
it ourselves. 

susskind: We want to inspect each others' stockpile of nu- 
clear weapons and launching sites, so that we know what exists 
and what will be abandoned. 

khrushchev: But we do not want to leave anything. We want 
to destroy everything. Why leave anything? Our objective is that 
there should be no weapons, that wars should not break out be- 
tween states. But you want to destroy part of the weapons, and 
leave part. But why leave any part? Obviously, for war purposes. 
susskind: The presumption of disarmament before controls is 
that absolute trust and faith on both sides exist. This is simply 
not true. We have lived through a terrible time of tension and 
conflict. Therefore, we must first inspect, agree upon control, and 
then commence disarmament. 

khrushchev: I find it difficult to reply to this because I am 
the Prime Minister of a great country, and I know this question 
more profoundly than you do. You evidently are not well enough 
acquainted with the problem, and therefore it will be difficult for 
us to find a meeting ground. The Soviet Union is willing to effect 
disarmament, and that is the main thing. You speak of inspection 
and of control. We shall never accept inspection and control with- 
out disarmament, because that would be espionage. We must 
achieve a solution of the main problem-disarmament. We must 
achieve peace. Let us destroy our weapons and set up an inspec- 
tion system to prevent anyone from arming in secret. 

susskind: A final thing. When two philosophies are in abso- 
lute stalemate with each other, on so many issues, there must be 


on the part of both sides the desire to negotiate and accomplish 
some constructive results, since both sides agree that war is un- 
thinkable. Do you agree that negotiation is the only way and that 
you are going to pursue that course? 

khrushchev: That is right. We have different philosophies. 
Yours is a bourgeois philosophy, ours is a communist one. On this 
question we shall not agree, and we must not try to reach agree- 
ment in this respect. Differences in opinions and philosophical 
concepts must not lead to wars between our countries. 

susskind: Must we coexist? 

khrushchev: Yes, we must coexist. 

susskind: In peace, in conditions of peace? 

khrushchev: Yes. 

susskind: Even though colleagues of yours are advocating a 
more militaristic approach? 

khrushchev: Do not try to confuse me. I am an experienced 
man. And do not exercise pressure on me. We want peace to pre- 
vail. Develop your economy and care for your state on capitalist 
foundations. We do not intervene in your domestic affairs; don't 
you intervene in our affairs. 

susskind: And of the new countries, neither of us will inter- 
fere in their affairs. 

khrushchev: No one shall interfere, each country will choose 
the system it wants to have for itself. 

susskind: Would you join with us in an arms embargo? With 
respect to the new countries, neither of us to ship arms of any 

khrushchev: We proposed that a long time ago. We proposed 
an agreement that no nation, no state should sell any other coun- 
try arms. But you did not accept that. 

susskind: But a real arms race is on now with the new coun- 
tries of Africa particularly. 

khrushchev: Then let's sign such an agreement. We want 
peace, not war, and we will do everything on our part to consoli- 
date peace. 

susskind: With respect to the new countries, that would in- 
clude armaments, as well as military personnel, technicians, and 
so forth? 


khrushchev: Yes, it would. What is necessary is that you and 
the British and the French should observe this. That no one 
should sell them arms. What do these new states need weapons 
for? They need bread, machinery for the development of their 
economy. They do not need armaments. They themselves would 
not be taking them, had no one interfered in their internal affairs. 

susskind: Are you prepared to go to a new summit with our 
new president? 

khrushchev; Not only am I ready, but I think that we shall 
meet by all means, 

susskind; Will that summit have a preparation at a lower 
le.\ r el, which would accomplish a lot of progress, before the states- 
men sat down? 

khrushchev: We are prepared to take any reasonable steps 
which would lead to the improvement of relations between our 
countries, to peace and friendship. The presidential elections are 
your domestic affair. We are ready to meet and have reasonable 
negotiations, to reach an agreement which would ensure peace 
among us and friendship among all peoples. 

But it is getting rather late. It is apparently time to finish this 

susskind: Good night, Mr. Khrushchev. 

khrushchev: Thank you, thank you very much. You're not 
offended at me? 

susskind: No, I'm not offended, mystified is the word. 

khrushchev: Well, good-by and thank you. 

susskind: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, our 
guest tonight has been the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita 
Khrushschev. We've endeavored to ask a number of questions, 
hoping for his answers; you have heard the questions and the 
answers. You will have to judge the results for yourself. 


October IT, I960 

On the Procedure for Discussing the 
Disarmament Question 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 


We are now deciding what questions should be discussed at 
the plenary meeting of the General Assembly. The disarmament 
question is the most important. That is the opinion of the peoples 
of the Soviet Union and all the countries of the socialist camp. 
That is the opinion of all who sincerely strive to guarantee a dur- 
able peace on earth. 

Therefore, we feel that the disarmament question should be 
discussed precisely at the plenary meeting, so that this question, 
which is of concern to all peoples, may take precedence in the 
work of the current Assembly. 

The General Assembly, the supreme organ of the United Na- 
tions, has been set up not only to settle disputes that may arise 
between states, but primarily to solve the important problems of 
ensuring peace. 

Under present conditions disarmament is the cardinal prob- 
lem; the ensuring of durable peace depends on its solution. No 
other question, no matter how important, can be compared with 
this one, for on this question depends whether there will be another 
world war or not. War can be excluded only if agreement on dis- 
armament is reached among the states, only if disarmament is 
carried out under strict international control so that no state can 
secretly revive armaments and again threaten other states. 

The Soviet delegation has already submitted this question as 
a primary and urgent matter for discussion at the plenary meeting. 
Today we appeal to all the delegates to try to realize the thorough- 
going seriousness and urgency of this matter. 


Of course, if we take the approach to the disarmament prob- 
lem suggested by Mr. Lodge, who said that since there were 79 
items on the General Assembly agenda it was impossible to devote 
attention to the disarmament problem— if we take such an ap- 
proach to the work of the United Nations and understand its 
main purpose in such a way this means, strictly speaking, con- 
demning the United Nations to disintegration. In that case this 
organization would not be able to cope with the main task en- 
trusted to it. 

The chief duty of the United Nations is to ensure peace. And 
reaching agreement on disarmament and the destruction of arma- 
ments under strict international control is the basic problem in 
ensuring peace. 

All of us should thoroughly understand this, Messrs. dele- 
gates, for the destinies of peace and the people are at stake. 

The plan now proposed by the Steering Committee has already 
been tested over the course of many years. How many years have 
various commissions and committees spent discussing the disarma- 
ment problem? Yet, has much been accomplished in these commit- 
tees to solve this problem practically? Little, very little has been 
accomplished-one might even say nothing. Therefore, the Soviet 
Government hopes that all states will, at last, realize the respon- 
sibility they bear and the importance of the disarmament problem, 
and discuss this problem at the plenary meeting of the General 

If the disarmament problem continues to be put off, as has 
been done until now, there is danger that events will develop 
in the same direction as they did in the League of Nations on 
the eve of World War II. Mr. Nehru, Prime Minister of India, 
has spoken of this problem with great conviction at the present 
session. There is danger that the United Nations will follow the 
same road taken by the cart of the League of Nations on the ques- 
tion of disarmament. 

Therefore, we must exert special effort to pull the wheels out 
of this deep rut and take a road that will ensure agreement on 

I should like to report to the assembled delegates that a very 
complicated situation is now developing. Secondary, creeping 


questions are being discussed, while with each passing day more 
and more armaments accumulate, and each passing day brings new 
acts of provocation which, far from facilitating matters, make the 
solution of the disarmament question more difficult, increase ten- 
sion, aggravate the "cold war," and step up the armaments race. 

It is difficult to convince people who long for peace and, con- 
sequently, for a solution of all questions connected with ensuring 
peace, that the General Assembly has no time to discuss such 
an important question as that of general and complete disarma- 
ment. You will remember how much time was spent discussing 
the question of whether it was worthwhile to keep the Chiang 
Kai-shek puppet in the United Nations, although it is crystal-clear 
to all sober-minded people that the legitimate rights of People's 
China, whose government represents all the Chinese people, should 
have been restored long ago. For how many years in a row has 
this question been discussed? How many days has it taken up at 
every session of the General Assembly? The US and its allies in 
military blocs are the ones mainly responsible for the fact that 
the legitimate rights of China have not yet been restored in the 
United Nations. 

The representatives of the Western powers have no time to 
discuss the disarmament problem but they have plenty of time to 
preserve international tension, to prevent normalization of rela- 
tions between states. By their actions they are creating a situation, 
that even in the future would make it impossible to achieve agree- 
ment on disarmament. The US Government is continuing to pursue 
the Dulles policy of brinkmanship. But, as everyone knows, it is 
easy to fall off a brink and then a world war might break out that 
would bring mankind incalculable suffering. 

Take some of the other "questions" that have been discussed 
in the United Nations for several years but that produce nothing 
but a stink and poison the international climate. I mean the so- 
called Hungarian question, the Tibetan question, and similar 
questions which the great masters of provocation in the US hunt 
up. They make every effort to have the UN concentrate its atten- 
tion on these questions and to divert it from truly important and 
urgent international problems. But it is clear to all that such 
questions are not aimed at easing international tension. On the 
contrary, they are fraught with the seeds of discord and hostility, 


and artificially increase international tension. Thus, certain def- 
inite circles want to continue the cold war. 

It is high time for everybody to realize the seriousness of the 

present situation. 

The fact that most of the heads of states and governments 
who came to the UN General Assembly have already returned to 
their countries, while others are about to leave, shows that they 
apparently have no confidence in the current General Assembly 
session and have no hope that it will really take up such burning 
questions as complete and general disarmament. 

But this can be remedied, for modern means of transporta- 
tion make it possible to fly off quickly and return just as quickly. 
I am confident that if the disarmament problem were seriously 
raised at the plenary meeting of the Assembly and if special, 
extraordinary importance were attached to this question, the heads 
of government and state who have already left would be able to 
return to the Assembly. Moreover, those heads of government 
and state who did not participate at the beginning of the session 
would be able to come here. 

This problem could also be settled in another way. I have 
said as much to Mr. Macmillan, the British Prime Minister, and 
to other statesmen, as well as at the press conference at the UN 
Press Association. Perhaps it would be expedient to discuss the 
problem of general and complete disarmament at an emergency 
session of the UN General Assembly. 

Right now, what with the presidential elections, a situation 
has arisen in the United States where the government of that 
country is apparently unwilling to assume any new and important 
commitments. Yet without the constructive participation of the 
United States no agreement on disarmament can be reached at the 
United Nations General Assembly. 

An emergency session of the General Assembly could be con- 
vened sometime in March or April of next year. It could be 
proposed that all states should send the heads of state or govern- 
ment as the leaders of their delegations to that session. 

It will be necessary to do everything possible to reach a 
disarmament agreement at that extraordinary session of the Gen- 
eral Assembly and to have every country make its substantial 


contribution to the common cause of reaching a disarmament 
agreement and ensuring world peace. 

I believe that all who strive for peace and international 
friendship will welcome such a decision to call an extraordinary 
session of the UN General Assembly. 

I should like to repeat that it would be desirable to hold 
that session in Europe, for instance in Geneva, since the majority 
of the United Nations member-countries geographically gravitate 
to Europe. The session could be held in Moscow or Leningrad. 
In that case we on our part would do everything in our power 
to create the appropriate conditions for the normal functioning 
of the General Assembly session, for all the delegates who come 
to that session. 

Thus, the Soviet delegation insists on the need to have the 
question of general and complete disarmament discussed at the 
plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly with the participa- 
tion of the heads of government. If for one reason or other it 
becomes impossible to discuss the disarmament problem in its 
full scope and to reach agreement at this session at least on the 
main principles, the Soviet Government deems it necessary that 
an extraordinary session of the General Assembly be convened 
with only one item on its agenda— general and complete disarma- 

I call upon you, fellow delegates, to realize fully the respon- 
sibility of the United Nations in settling such an important 
question as disarmament. The peoples af the whole world expect 
the United Nations to pave the way, at long last, to a solution 
of the urgent and vital task of general and complete disarmament. 


October 11, 1960 

Statement for Radio Cuba 

Dear friends, citizens of the free and independent Republic 
of Cubal 

While on the American continent in the United States of 
America, so close to you, I am especially pleased to send greetings 
to the Cuban people, their revolutionary government and to Fidel 
Castro, that outstanding revolutionary and Prime Minister of 

Only several days ago we met him and the other delegates of 
the Cuban Republic at the UN General Assembly. During the 
meetings with Fidel Castro we discussed many things and estab- 
lished the fact that the viewpoints of the Soviet Union and Cuba 
coincide on basic international problems. 

The Soviet Union and Cuba are striving for a relaxation of 
international tension, for general and complete disarmament un- 
der strict international control. The Soviet Union is glad that the 
Cuban delegation on behalf of its people raised its voice for the 
complete and final ending of colonial slavery, for freedom for all 
nations in the world. 

We at the Assembly heard the voice of Fidel Castro, the voice 
of Cuba. We applauded him and at present continue to applaud. 
The sacred principle of freedom for all nations is especially near 
and dear to those who defended their independence with arms in 
their hands, who paid a high price so that this freedom might 
triumph in their countries. 

I do not have to tell you how strenuously and persistently the 
Cuban people fought to have their country free and independent, 
so that the wealth of Cuba would belong to the Cubans, and the 
rights of Cuba would belong to the Cuban people. 

We especially understand and sympathize with this because 
the Soviet Union itself had to traverse a great path of struggle 
before it became a free socialist state. The Soviet people faced 


many hardships on their path before our motherland became one 
of the greatest and strongest powers in the world. 

How many times did our enemies crow, how many times did 
they prepare crusades, and organize blockades in order to destroy 
us. But you yourselves know that it is impossible to conquer a 
people when all, young and old, come out in defense of their 

Soviet people rejoice over the liberation of Cuba from the 
yoke of imperialist monopolies. We supported, are supporting and 
shall continue to support your struggle for political and economic 
independence, for a rise in the people's wellbeing. We shall con- 
tinue to do this not because we have a stuffed purse and don't 
know what to do with the money. Certainly the Soviet Union is 
a great and rich country, but we have our own needs, our own 
urgent problems. 

Our motherland has grown unprecedently strong during the 
forty-three years of Soviet power, the production capacity of its 
industry has increased many-fold, has exceeded all the capitalist 
countries with the exception of the United States in the volume 
of industrial production and has now launched a great peaceful 
challenge to the United States. The Seven-Year Plan which the 
Soviet people are carrying out under the leadership of their Com- 
munist Party makes it possible for us to reach the US production 
level and by 1970 we shall be not the second but the first country 
in the world not only in strength and power but in per capita 
output as well. 

The Soviet people support and will continue to support the 
Cuban people so that you may achieve great new successes in the 
development and nourishing of your independent state. 

It is impossible to intimidate the Cuban people because they 
meet with the support of all peace-loving nations throughout the 
world. The Soviet people wish you success, fortitude and courage 
in your great cause of reviving your motherland. 

A victorious people has to overcome quite a number of diffi- 
culties on its path: it is necessary to organize the economy. People 
desire not only political victory and democratic organization of 
the country. They want their material requirements to be ever 
more fully met. This in turn requires greater and persistent work, 
organization experience, trained personnel. A victorious people 


always lack experienced personnel because the exploiters think 
only about their own class, and keep the toiling workers and 
peasants in ignorance. These difficulties cannot be ignored. 

The enemy uses all possible means for undermining the revo- 
lution. They slander the people, the leaders, and the republic and 
engage in subversive activities. I learned from the papers that the 
American imperialists are organizing and smuggling subversive 
detachments into your country, and are supplying them with weap- 
ons by means of so-called unknown planes, and you, of course, 
know, just as we know whose planes these are. You have shot down 
these unknown planes and they have become known. Unknown 
planes flew over our country as well: we shot them down and they 
also appear to be very well known-they belonged to American 

But if the Cuban people are united, if you are solid, if you 
are true to your revolutionary government and are well organized, 
you shall achieve your aims and shall be victorious. 

There is no need to assure you, dear friends, that the peoples 
of the Soviet Union are on your side. Not only today but also 
throughout your entire struggle for independence we shall be with 
you. I think there is no need to assure you of this. You yourself 
feel this very well. 

From here, from New York, I warmly greet you and your 
government headed by Fidel Castro, that fearless man and hero, 

I should like to say sincerely: 

Long live Soviet-Cuban friendship! 

Long live Cubal 

Long live her people! 

Long live the complete victory of your just cause! 

October 11, I960 

Reply on Disarmament 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 


I have been listening attentively to all who have spoken here. 
The representatives of the Western countries objected chiefly to 
our proposal that the plenary meetings of the General Assembly 
discuss the disarmament question. These men are old hands when 
it comes to discussions. They claim that the Soviet Union wants 
to make propaganda by having the Assembly discuss disarmament 
at the plenary meetings. However, they themselves are the kind of 
propaganda-makers who know all the ins and outs, so to speak, 
when it comes to making propaganda in support of their own views. 

The delegates have now been "thrown a bone" for contention, 
namely, which UN body— the Assembly's plenary or the First 
Committee— would be the best forum for a discussion of disarma- 
ment. This is useless argument! It doesn't exist for us. What we 
want is to have the question discussed where a settlement of this 
burning problem may be found soonest, where it may really be 
settled in the interests o£ the peoples. 

In that case you might ask me: why are we insisting upon 
having this problem discussed at the plenary meetings of the 
General Assembly and not in the Committee? The explanation is 
a very simple one. We have already been in the Committee. We 
already know that stable— excuse me for the rather rude compari- 
son—we know how it smells. In the Committee we achieved no 
results at all. 

You know that we were in the Five-Power Committee on 
which Britain, the United States, Canada, France, and the Soviet 
Union were represented. We spent many years working in that 
Committee. At first we agreed even not to tell the press anything 
about its discussions, and to keep this inside the Committee. We 



thought and honestly believed that the people taking part in the 
work of this Committee as representatives of the countries I have 
named were really interested not in provoking complications dur- 
ing the disarmament discussions but in creating the best conditions 
for the achievement of agreement at the earliest date. 

But what came of all this? 

America had the best representative in the Five-Power Com- 
mittee—Mr. Stassen. However, he finally quit the Committee or 
rather, "had to quit," since he disagreed with the position he was 
called upon to take in upholding the views of the late US Sec- 
retary of State Dulles. 

We saw that the only thing the people in this Committee 
took seriously was the drinking of tea— or coffee, for those who 
preferred it. One round of meetings followed another. One spoke, 
another listened and a third moved that the meeting be postponed 
to another day. And it went on like that interminably. I can't 
tell you for sure how many years these meetings went on. But we 
couldn't stand it any longer. There is, perhaps, a somewhat free- 
and-easy expression, "let's spit on that institution and quit it." And 
we quit it because it is not one for settling disarmament, but a 
screen to deceive the public, to deceive the peoples, the working 
class, the toiling peasantry and the intellectuals, to deceive all who 
really want disarmament. But we don't want any part of such 

I can see Mr. Jules Moch here. He is considered to be a 
Socialist and a man who has talked the skin off his teeth at sessions 
in the Ten Nation Committee. But to what end? None. 

When I met Mr. de Gaulle, the President of the French 
Republic, we reached a common understanding on certain prob- 
lems. We agreed that to achieve accord on disarmament we must 
start translating this understanding into reality by destroying the 
means of nuclear-weapon delivery. I continue to support Mr. de 
Gaulle, the President of the French Republic, on what he said 
in this connection. 

After that, Mr. Jules Moch spoke at a news conference 
or in some other place— I can't quite remember exactly where, 
but he ought to know— and repeated what Mr. de Gaulle had said. 
We were happy to see that through its President, and then through 
its representative in the Disarmament Committee, France had 


stated this for all to hear. We thought that we were beginning 
to have an understanding with one of the partners in the Atlantic 
military bloc. But we were mistaken. When Jules Moch turned up 
in the Committee he started saying quite different things. That 
was another Jules Moch— not the one who had addressed the pub- 
lic but the one who had spent many years in the Committee and 
was doing all he could to stymie the disarmament talks. 

Gentlemen, we still have some patience left. Our last hope 
is that perhaps at its plenary meetings the General Assembly will 
be able to help in achieving a disarmament agreement and that it 
will finally shield humanity from war. Let me tell once again, 
gentlemen, that if a war breaks out it will be a global war. Many 
can't imagine what a future war will be like. I can, and concretely 
so. The Soviet Union is not afraid of war! If we have war thrust 
upon us, we shall fight for our country and we shall win, whatever 
the cost! 

But we must not forget the fact that this war would cause 
untold losses and that you now sitting here would also be held 
responsible for that. True, some of those sitting here have no good 
name to shield in the first place. History will never forgive them 
that! Let me emphasize: we believe it is essential for the General 
Assembly to discuss disarmament at its plenary meetings. 

Among the speakers here were Mr. Greene, for Canada, and the 
United States representative— since his name is hard to pronounce 
I shan't do it in order not to get my tongue twisted, I think every- 
one will guess whom I mean without any mistake. They said that 
Khrushchev, you see, was also planning to leave. Yes, I am plan- 
ning to leave for Moscow on Thursday, October 13, at midnight. 
But if you really want disarmament I will not only put off my 
departure for Moscow, but will confer here until a disarmament 
agreement is reached. 

Things are going well in our country. I, the Chairman of the 
Council of Ministers, have been away for a month already, but 
things in the country are going ahead wonderfully. Therefore I 
can spend here as much more time as we need to reach an agree- 
ment on disarmament. Things in our country are improving with 
every year, with every day. 

You believe the struggle for disarmament is propaganda. And 
you think that by raising the Hungarian and Tibetan questions 


you are sowing, as Polish Foreign Minister Rapacki rightly put 
it here, the seeds of peace and understanding, don't you? No, you 
just dig up those questions which are likely to make countries 
quarrel with one another. Well, do as you like. We do not fear 
such issues either. We are no bulls to be teased by a red cloth 
and to attack those who tease. We are Communists; we have 
strong nerves; we have had good schooling in fighting. We fought 
the White Guards for four years; we overthrew and routed the 
enemies of the working class; and you want to scare us with dis- 
putes. Well, gentlemen, you haven't got the guts for that, I'll 
tell you. 

Why should you raise the Tibetan question? But, as I have 
already said, do raise it, if you need to. While moving about in 
New York, I see always Americans chewing gum— this is their 
habit. Now instead of gum you want to give the Assembly dele- 
gates a piece of cotton for them to sit and chew on. Those who 
have an itch for this may do it, but we are not going to. 

Gentlemen, I think we should wake up those slumbering here; 
wake up those absent from here— for the nations have sent them 
to the General Assembly to discuss the disarmament problem. 
Instead, they are roaming about in New York or God knows 
where, though they are paid with their people's money. 

I state, gentlemen, that the time will come when you will 
realize the necessity of disarmament. People will throw out those 
who put roadblocks in the way to peace and understanding rather 
than create conditions for an agreement on disarmament. 

You will not scare us, the people of the socialist world. Our 
economy is expanding, our engineering is on the upgrade, and the 
people are united. You want to force us into the arms race, don't 
you? We do not want it, but we do not fear it, either. We shall 
beat you! Rockets in the Soviet Union are turned out by produc- 
tion line methods. Recently I visited a factory and saw rockets 
coming off the assembly line like sausages from an automatic 
machine, rocket after rocket. 

Some people would like to test the strength of our ground 
forces. You did once, and we defeated you. I mean those who 
made war on us in the first years after the October Revolution: 
the imperialists of the United States, France, Britain, Germany, 
and Japan. We routed their troops and threw them out like scum 


from our sacred soil. Should the imperialists repeat their aggres- 
sion now, we shall defeat them again, but on a more advanced 

Some gentlemen will immediately jabber that Khrushchev 
is threatening somebody. No, Khrushchev is not threatening any- 
body, but is forecasting your real future. If you fail to realize the 
actual situation and refuse to create conditions for an agreement 
on disarmament, things will become more complicated, because if 
there is no disarmament, there will be an arms race. And any 
arms race is bound, in the long run, to reach its climax in a war. 
Should war break out, many of those sitting here will be among 
the missing. 

Wake up, gentlemen; pinch yourself where it hurts if you 
find it difficult to stay awake. Many have become accustomed to 
hearing unctuous words here. I will not be sly with them, nor 
pat them on the back now that the world is on the brink of catas- 
trophe. If my words are not pleasing to someone, then I have 
achieved my goal— that is what I wanted to do. 

What is there to add? 

So far not all of the peoples of Asia and Africa who have 
recently rid themselves of colonial oppression are aware of their 
own strength; they still follow their hangmen of yesterday— the 
colonialists. But while this is the case today, it will not be so 
tomorrow; no, it will not. The peoples will rise, straighten their 
shoulders and assert their desire to become their own masters. 
Take my word, gentlemen, this will happen in the not too distant 

It is your right to vote for the discussion of this problem 
in the First Committee. We have no objections against the First 
Committee— we have nothing against it, for I do not know where 
conditions are better— in the First Committee or in the General 
Assembly. But we say that we have already tried the First Com- 
mittee and nothing has come of it. This is why we would like— for 
the happiness of the nations— to have this problem discussed once 
again at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly. If you 
drive us into that committee again, we reserve the right to take 
or not to take part in its work. If we see that the committee is 
turned into a smoke screen to mislead people and that nothing 
is really done about disarmament except to talk about it, as is the 


case to date, we shall walk out of the committee; we shall not be 
used as a smoke screen, nor will we deceive the working people 
of the world. 

We have listened to the Canadian, American and British rep- 
resentatives here. They posed, as they have before, as righteous peo- 
ple—those same colonialists who are rich because the colonies are 
poor, because they have robbed these colonies. And here they pose 
as Saint Nicholases. Honest people, however, can see their real faces. 

Yes, we left the Five Nation Committee, but why? You gentle- 
ment had turned that Committee into a stable. You had raised 
such a stink there that there was no air for an honest man to 
breathe, and we left. Like all honest persons and true sons of 
working people, we long for fresh air. We have left not to return. 

Gentlemen, if the disarmament problem should be discussed 
in the First Committee, we shall take part in its work at first. We 
will see how the discussion proceeds. 

Perhaps a decision should be adopted to expand the Ten 
Nation Committee. Incidentally, our proposal envisages a Fifteen 
Nation Committee. We are prepared to participate in such a com- 
mittee if representatives of the neutral countries are included in 
it, as we propose. 

Such a committee will be able to work successfully, if the 
General Assembly passes a resolution to the effect that all nations 
pledge to disarm and to destroy their weapons under international 

What kind of international control is required? I repeat: if a 
resolution is passed on general and complete disarmament and 
the destruction of weapons, we shall agree to any kind of control. 
You may choose the toughest representatives from among those 
who hate communism and socialism— we shall believe even them— 
and let them work out proposals for control, The deeper and 
wider the international control of disarmament, the more secure 
will be the hope of the peoples that no country can make weapons 
secretly or threaten any of its neighbors with war. 

We do not fear control, that is control of disarmament, a 
control which would follow the adoption of a resolution on dis- 
armament. In this way, disarmament would fee carried out under 


And what has Mr. Macmillan proposed from this rostrum? 
In his talk with me he said: Mr, Khrushchev, don't be in a hurry. 
It is impossible to solve such a problem overnight. We'd better, 
he said, do something like this: let us get together and set up a 
political committee and a scientific committee. 

And this scientific committee will do research into the best 
method of killing a flea: is it better to pull out its legs or to tear 
away its head? This, of course, is a "scientific problem," gentlemen, 
but only for those who do not want disarmament. This is why I 
told Mr. Macmillan: you want to drag us into a labyrinth with 
no light or air, infested only with bats which fear light. You want 
us to take part there in work on scientific problems of how to 
achieve disarmament— and this will take, they say, from five to 
ten years. 

Gentlemen, if we are to wait another five to ten years, we can 
say for certain we shall never come to terms concerning disarma- 
ment. If today only three powers are in actual possession of atomic 
weapons and a fourth state has begun testing them, in five or ten 
years, I am sure, countries possessing nuclear weapons will be 
counted by the dozen, and agreement will then be much harder 
to arrive at. 

It is already possible to send rockets and missiles to any point 
on the globe, and we can— on top of this— land our spaceships at 
any point. And what will the picture be like in five or ten years? 
Gentlemen, you ought to realize it clearly. Therefore, if you do 
want peace— though not all present here do, but the majority 
perhaps does, and I turn to this majority— raise your voices for 
disarmament, and mankind will be grateful to you. If you follow 
imperialist, monopolist capital whose envoys spoke here, if you 
follow the North Atlantic military bloc, people will damn you, 
because they have trusted to you the holy of holies-peace, and 
you will have disappointed people in their hopes, failed to reach 
an agreement on disarmament, and led mankind to war. 

These are the alternatives before you, gentlemen. Make your 

Thank you for your attention. 


October 11, 1960 

News Conference 

Late at night, on October 11, the crowd of newsmen who keep 
a constant vigil at the Soviet Mission to the United Nations swelled 
to unusual proportions. Everybody was waiting for Khrushchev's 
return from the United Nations. As soon as he stepped out of his 
car, the questions began. The following is a transcript of 
Khrushchev's conversation with the correspondents in front of the 
Soviet Mission. 

correspondent: We have just heard your statement at the 
General Assembly. 

khrushchev: Yes, you may congratulate the imperialist states, 
they may celebrate a "victory." They prevented the discussion of 
disarmament at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly and 
brought the world nearer to catastrophe. This is a victory for the 
forces of war and not for the forces of peace. Every honest person 
will regret this decision. Apparently the United States, Britain, 
France and Canada do not want disarmament and other countries 
do not yet realize the need for solving this question. But we shall 
not spare our strength, we shall fight for peace, and expose the 
warmongers. People will wake up if it is not too late. 

correspondent: You have painted a gloomy picture. Don't 
you see any ray of hope? 

khrushchev: Not at this session. 

correspondent: And in the future? 

khrushchev: If the peoples raise their voice and compel the 
governments to disarm not in words but in deeds, there will be no 
war. Without pressure from the peoples, the Western governments 
will not agree to disarm. 

The imperialist countries gained this voting victory in order 
to degrade the significance of the discussion of disarmament at the 
General Assembly. But we shall not relax our efforts in the strug- 
gle for disarmament. We represent a country which genuinely 
stands for disarmament and lasting peace and no one will make 
us budge from this position. 


October 12, 1960 

The Question of Granting Independence to Colonial 
Countries and Peoples 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 


The Government of the Soviet Union has proposed that the 
Fifteenth General Assembly Session put on its agenda the question 
of the adoption by UN member states of a Declaration on the 
granting of independence to the colonial countries and peoples. 
We believe it is necessary for the General Assembly to discuss this 
matter at its plenary meetings. 

The exceptionally great importance of the international prob- 
lem of delivering mankind from the shameful colonialist practices 
inherited from the past, should be obvious to everyone. Dozens of 
peoples and countries have already shaken off the ignominious 
colonialist yoke. The time is ripe to have all the peoples liber- 
ated from colonialist oppression fully and once and for all. This 
is a matter that is now particularly acute and pressing. 

This point was dwelt upon by President Nkrumah of Ghana, 
Prime Minister Nehru of India, President Nasser of the United 
Arab Republic, President Sukarno of the Indonesian Republic, 
Prime Minister Castro of Cuba, President Sekou Toure of the Re- 
public of Guinea, Shukeiry, the head of the Saudi-Arabia delega- 
tion, and many other delegates in their speeches at this Assembly. 

The General Assembly must realize in all seriousness that if 
the most urgent measures are not taken, colonialism can still cause 
much suffering and sacrifice, take many more millions of lives and 
provoke armed conflicts and wars threatening peace and security 
not only in separate parts of the globe, but throughout the world 

Much is said about freedom, equality, and brotherhood in the 
West. There is talk of this also among the colonial powers. Their 



ruling circles even try to assure us with a serious face that the 
colonialist system is a progressive one; they call this system o£ 
slavery "help for the backward peoples" and "the raising of these 
peoples to the highest level of civilization." However, tens and 
hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa, and Latin America 
know only too well what this "highest level of civilization" actu- 
ally means for those nations enslaved by the colonialists. 

As a result of this "civilization" the population of several 
colonies, for instance, the Congo, has dwindled to nearly half of 
what it was before. Everyone knows how Australia's indigenous 
population was exterminated. Mr. Menzies who spoke here ought 
not to forget that. The same thing happened in the United States 
where the indigenous Indian population was all but killed off, 
with those who survived chased into reservations. 

And though America's Negro population ultimately became 
free after the abolition of slavery, they are still discriminated 
against and their elementary rights are curtailed to the minimum. 
In many states of the United States Negro children cannot go to 
school together with white children. Negroes are barred from 
hotels for whites, from theaters and restaurants. Such is the true 
face of the "civilization" that the imperialist colonialist powers 
boast so much about! A fine sort of civilization, indeed! It was 
planted by force in defiance of the wishes of the peoples. The 
colonialists sent troops, artillery, and machine guns, and after the 
troops came missionaries carrying the cross. 

It was just recently that Mr. Macmillan waxed eloquent when 
painting a picture of the blessings that Britain had conferred on 
the colonial peoples. But litsen to what British newspapers say 
about the real state of affairs in the colonies. Kenya, Rhodesia, and 
the other colonies are in a state of turbulence! The colonialists 
have been forced to despatch reinforcements to Rhodesia. What 
sort of reinforcements are these— grain, medicines, doctors, and 
teachers? Oh, no, these are reinforcements in the form of troops, 
machine guns, shells, and cartridges. Send more cartridges! This 
is what the colonialist benefactors demand. 

Indeed, today prayers will no longer cover up the nakedness 
of colonialist plunder. The peoples whom the colonialists seek to 
inoculate with "civilization" know that this sort of "inoculation" 
is costing their brothers their lives. We must resolutely unmask 


the colonialists and reveal the true face of those who brought 
disease, poverty, hunger, and death to the enslaved countries. We 
must not let the colonialists go on hiding behind lying phraseology 
about "the giving of help" and "civilizing," claiming that the 
colonial peoples are still not mature enough for self-government. 

Those are all the ravings of the slave-traders and the slave- 
owners. No, it is not civilization that they want to bring. They 
want to go on using the cheap labor of the colonial peoples, to 
go on exploiting the riches of the colonial countries, to go on 
waxing rich and fat by looting the oppressed peoples. 

All the peoples can govern their countries by themselves. All 
that is necessary is to give them the opportunity to do so. 

If the United Nations fails to adopt proposals aimed at abol- 
ishing the colonial regime, the peoples of the colonial countries 
will have no other recourse than to take up arms. If they are not 
granted the right to an independent existence, to the choice of a 
political and social system at their own discretion, to the arrange- 
ment of their own lives on their own soil as they themselves see 
fit, they will win this right in struggle. I have said before and I 
shall say again that the Soviet people are on the side of those 
fighting for liberation from the colonial yoke, for their freedom 
and independence! 

A lot has been said here about the situation in the Congo, 
and about the obligation of the United Nations to help the Con- 
golese people in their struggle for independence. But what has 
actually been happening so far? When the UN intervened in the 
Congo, Mr. Hammarskjold, the Secretary-General, did everything 
he could for the benefit of the colonialists. By means of the action 
he took, he disrupted the normal functioning of the lawful gov- 
ernment and deprived it of all means of communication. The 
imperialist-colonialists found a Mobutu, supplied this renegade 
and traitor to the Congolese people and others like him with 
money, and began to corrupt the army in order that they might 
continue with their colonialist plunder with the army's support. 
But the Congolese people did not give up. Drawing support from 
the resolve of its people, from the resolve of the lawfully elected 
Parliament, the Congo Government, which Mr. Lumumba heads, 
is doing all in its power to uphold its country's independence and 


integrity. That is really the reflection of the will of the Congolese 

Life has debunked the falsehoods told by the Belgian colonial- 
ists who alleged that they had gone back to the Congo to protect 
women, children, and old people. Actually no one ever threatened 
them. The colonialists returned when they saw that the new parli- 
ament and the new government that had come into being when 
the Congo had proclaimed its independence, wished to govern 
the country by themselves and dispose of its riches in the interests 
of the people, when they saw that this parliament and this gov- 
ernment wanted to have not only nominal but also factual inde- 

History supplies quite a number of instructive examples on 
this score. There was a time in Russia, too, when serfdom was 
cracking at every seam and the peasants had begun to revolt 
against the much-hated yoke of landlord serfdom. The more far- 
sighted members of the landed gentry said at the time that the 
serfs must be freed from the top because otherwise they would 
themselves take their freedom from the bottom. To some extent 
this is applicable today to the colonial powers. If the colonialists 
fail to meet the lawful demands of the peoples of the colonies and 
dependencies, these peoples will take their freedom by force. That 
will be quite fair. They will take what rightly belongs to them. 

The people who are against a discussion of the question of 
the abolition of the colonial system at the General Assembly's 
plenary meetings, with the participation of the heads of the gov- 
ernments, are demonstrating the shortsighted character of their 
policy and the bankrupt nature of their reckonings. In vain do 
the colonialists hope that they will be able to halt the great move- 
ment of the oppressed peoples for freedom and independence. 
The entire trend of world history calls for the abolition of the 
decayed colonial regime. The regime's final demise is but a matter 
of time. If the United Nations wishes to be faithful to its Charter, 
it must not hold aloof in deciding this matter. 

That is why the Soviet delegation is calling upon all the states 
to coordinate measures to abolish the regime of colonialist rule, 
so that this natural and inexorable historical process may take 
place under conditions where peace and international security will 
be preserved. 


We are addressing ourselves to the representatives of the 
Afro-Asian countries who have but recently gained their inde- 
pendence. We wish them to be duly aware of their responsibility 
in this present hour of history when the struggle of the colonial 
peoples for their complete emancipation is gaining increasing 

Esteemed delegates, representatives of countries which have 
become independent and have joined the United Nations as equal 

How many centuries was it that the colonialists squeezed out 
of you every ounce of sweat and blood, ruthlessly exploited your 
peoples and put down every living thing in your country! Now, 
when they can no longer go on with their policy of plunder, 
rapine, and murder in your countries, they pose as your benefac- 
tors. They now act the role of benign Christians and are not even 
averse themselves to condemning oppression and colonialism. 
They claim that by taking part in the colonial system they merely 
paved the way for your countries to achieve independence and 

But that is the lie that a robber, who knows he is a robber, 
tells. They now want to erase the memory of their atrocities in the 
minds of the peoples they strangled for centuries. That it why 
they are flirting with you, staging receptions, and delivering nice 

Please get me right. We have a tremendous amount of experi- 
ence and we well know all the artifices and cunning ruses of the 
oppressors, of the imperialists and the colonialists. 

This is all being done to win you over, to make of you, the 
representatives of states that were but recently colonial countries, 
a buttress for the colonialists themselves today, to get you to help 
them in their struggles to keep the colonialist system going. In the 
countries that have gained political independence they seek to 
create conditions that would enable the colonialists to go on with 
their pillage of the peoples by taking advantage of the economic 
backwardness of these countries. 

You must realize that the fate of your brothers on the African 
continent largely depends upon you. The colonialists want to use 
precisely your hands to do a dirty thing, to thwart the adoption 
of a Declaration for the liberation of all the colonial peoples. 


They want to use your hands to go on drawing the noose tight 
around the neck of the colonial peoples, to throttle these peoples. 

That is why the Soviet Government is calling on you to dis- 
play your will, to show that you not only know how to defend 
your own interests, the interests of your own peoples and states, 
but also that you who are now independent have not forgotten 
those still suffering in colonialist bondage. 

Is it for our countries to fear the phantom strength of the 
colonialists? We have truth on our sidel The balance of forces is 
in our favor. If you actively support the countries fighting against 
the colonialist yoke, we shall be in the majority. It is necessary to 
show courage and resolve. It is necessary to raise our voice against 
the colonialists, whatever guise they assume. The conscience of 
everyone in this hall is under the control of the people. Sooner 
or later the people will demand an accounting and will ask how 
their representative voted in the United Nations. Was he for the 
immediate and full termination of colonialist bondage, for free- 
dom for all the peoples? Or did he waver? 

We are calling for joint action in the struggle against colonial- 
ism. May the will of the peoples be done and an end be put once 
and for all to the colonial system! May all the colonies receive 
independence! May all the peoples become free! 

The abolition of colonialism would be of supreme importance 
for easing international tensions. The armed conflicts and the wars 
we have seen since the Second World War, such as the wars in 
Indonesia, Indochina, and Algeria, the aggression against Egypt, 
foreign intervention in the Lebanon and Jordan, and the plots 
against Syria and Iraq, occurred precisely because the imperialist 
colonialists sought to stifle the liberation movement and hamper 
the national advancement of the Afro-Asian and Latin-American 
countries. Moreover, the recent intervention against the Congo 
Republic resulted in an exacerbation of the international situa- 
tion and jeopardized peace in Africa— and not only in Africa. 

That is why we say that the problem of the complete aboli- 
tion of the colonialist system is to a large extent the problem of 
preserving and consolidating peace and international security. 

The delegation of the Soviet Union has submitted this ques- 
tion for consideration to the plenary session of 'the General Assem- 
bly, the most representative UN body. The need to have the mat- 


ter discussed right in this forum and at the highest level, with 
the heads of government taking part, is quite obvious. 

The discussion directly at plenary meetings— with the heads 
of government and foreign ministers of the UN member states 
participating— of the problem of eliminating the colonialist sys- 
tem will turn this discussion into a most authoritative one and 
guarantee the most favorable conditions for the successful solution 
of this problem within the framework of the United Nations. 

Thank you for your attention. 


October 12, 1960 

Remarks on the Colonial Question 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 

The representative of the Philippines, Senator Lorenzo Sumu- 
long, in the course of discussing the resolution calling for consider- 
ation of independence for colonies at the plenary meeting, referred 
to the countries of Eastern Europe as "colonies" of the Soviet Union. 

The representative of Roumania, Silviu Brucan, took the floor 
to protest on a point of order. The floor was then given to Premier 
Khrushchev on a point of order. Khrushchev stated: 


I protest the unequal treatment o£ the representatives of the 
states meeting here. Why, when the gentleman who represents his 
country, the country of the Congo, was speaking, did the chair- 
man stop him? Why? He was referring to a telegram he had re- 
ceived from his brothers* who are still suffering under the colonial 
yoke. Yet the chairman stopped him, stating that this was a ques- 
tion on substance, whereas it was a question of procedure, he said, 
that was being discussed. 

Why, when this groveler before American imperialism now 
speaks not at all on a question of procedure, why does the chair- 
man—who evidently sympathizes with colonial domination— not 
stop him? Is this just? No, it is not. 

Esteemed Delegates, Mr. President, 

We are living on earth not by God's favor or yours, but by 
the strength and reason of the great people of the Soviet Union 
and all the peoples who are fighting for independence. 

You cannot suppress the voice of the peoples, the voice of 
truth, which is now sounding and which will continue to sound. 
An end and death to colonial slavery! Down with it! It should be 
buried— the deeper, the better. 

*The telegram received by the representative of the Congo (Brazzaville) 
was from the people of Portuguese Cabina. It was while h£ was speaking about 
the difficult conditions under which they live that he was stopped by the 
President of the Assembly. 


October 12, 1960 

Reply on the Colonial Question 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 


I am anticipating with pleasure the fact that, as I hope, the 
Assembly will adopt a decision to discuss at its plenary meeting 
the question of the complete abolition of the colonial system. If 
my hope is not justified and the Assembly does not vote for a 
discussion of this question at its plenary meeting, then not only 
shall I be disappointed— that is not especially important— but mil- 
lions and millions of people who are in a state of colonial slavery 
and are awaiting their liberation will be disappointed. 

Gentlemen, I am extremely pleased by another fact, and that 
is that the representative of Great Britain, who took the floor 
here, sharply criticized my position. It gives me great satisfaction 
that the colonialists regard me as an enemy of the colonial system. 
That is a great reward for me, and I am proud of it. 

I am very fond of the words spoken by August Bebel, the 
leader of the German workers, a Social-Democrat. He said ap- 
proximately the following: "If the bourgeoisie praise you, Bebel, 
think what stupid thing you have done, for which they praise 
you. If the bourgeoisie speak badly of you, that means that you 
serve the working class, the proletariat loyally!" 

If the colonialists now rail at me, I am proud of the fact; it 
means that I am loyally serving the peoples who are fighting for 
their independence, for their freedom. 

The representative of Great Britain has taken the floor here. 
It would have been more fitting for him to learn a lesson, let us 
say, from a rich peasant. When the system of private ownership 
of the means of production existed in our country, the rich people 
acted as follows— and, probably this method is used in all coun- 


tries— when they hired a laborer, they fed him well on the first 
day. Subsequently the rich man exploited the laborer mercilessly, 
squeezed all the strength out o£ him, but when the laborer fin- 
ished the work for which he was hired, he was also fed well so that 
he might at least retain a good recollection of the exploiter who 
had squeezed all the strength out of him. The British colonialists, 
Mr. Representative of Great Britain, squeezed the blood and sweat 
out of the peoples of India, the peoples of Burma, and the other 
peoples whom they exploited and are still continuing to exploit. 

You too should show respect for these peoples who are now 
acquiring their independence and freedom, not by your mercies, 
but as a result of their struggle and the call of the times. Do not 
poison that day for them, the day which should be a holiday for 
the peoples who are acquiring their independence. They are 
human beings after all; grant them that moral satisfaction. They 
have fought for it. You cannot even rise to the level of the rich 
peasant who exploited the poor peasants. You want to make these 
peo]3le sweat to the end. 

Mr. Representative of Great Britain, when I said in my 
speech today that the people are rebelling and the British coloni- 
alists are sending guns in order to suppress them, I used informa- 
tion from your London newspapers. This information was pub- 
lished a day or two ago. So that these are quite fresh facts, indicat- 
ing that the peoples of the colonial countries are rebelling. We 
applaud them, but they must be given assistance on our part, 
because the colonialists are better armed, they are destroying and 
annihilating the populations of the colonies. 

Now with regard to the speech of the delegate of the Philip- 
pines. I must say that I have a dual reaction to this speech. I 
spoke sharply, I protested and I protest against the fact that he 
began "to stutter" in the first half of his speech but then he im- 
proved. And the representative of the Philippines arrived at a 
correct conclusion. I explain this as follows: He is not a bad man. 
As he said, he suffered for many years, for many years the people 
of the Philippines suffered under the yoke of the Spaniards. Then 
they were "taken over" by the Americans, and they barely achieved 
independence, although God knows what kind of independence 
it is. It has to be peered at through a microscope, this inde- 


The delegate of the Philippines understands what colonialism 
is, what the colonial yoke is. And apparently, in the first part of 
his speech he did not speak sincerely. That was the effect of the 
remains, the strings which still bind him, so to say, to the master— 
the United States of America. And they pulled the strings. And 
then, when he was stopped, he apparently came to the conclusion 
—why the hell should I go ahead— the Americans themselves do 
not take the floor but lie low, while they pushed me forward to 
speak for them. And that is why he, so to speak, gave vent to his 
feelings and poured out all of his hatred for the colonialists, for 
the colonialist yoke. And I applauded him for these words with 
pleasure and with all my heart. 

I believe that the time will come when the Philippines will 
become a genuinely independent country. Come to our country. 
We shall give you the opportunity to go to any republic. We shall 
ask the republics to invite you, and shall ask you to inspect them. 

Look at everything captiously, with a partial attitude, and 
even then you will understand what freedom is, and what colonial 
slavery is. There is no greater freedom for man than the freedom 
to build and develop an independent state, moreover a socialist 
state, such as ours is. 

The Soviet people have already completed the building of 
socialism and have begun to build communism. 

I know that not everyone here will applaud me, because 
you have to grow to an understanding of the heights of develop- 
ment of human society. But the time will come when you your- 
selves will speak about socialism from this tribunal, provided, 
of course, that this tribunal remains, if it is destined to remain. 
At present it is a very shaky tribunal. 

The floor has been taken here by an Englishman and by a 
Colombian. The Englishman and the Colombian are, practically, 
one and the same thing. The Englishman means the NATO mili- 
tary bloc, and Colombia means the Monroe Doctrine. And there- 
fore one can feel which way the wind blows. And one can feel the 
smell. One can feel it! Mr, Colombian, we listened to you as the 
representative of Colombia, but your voice is not the voice of 
the Colombian people. The Colombian people, like all other 
peoples, do not want to prolong colonial slavery. I am sure of 


that. The time will come when the representative of Colombia will 
really speak on behalf of the Colombian people from this rostrum. 

Gentlemen, I ask all the delegates to express themselves in 
favor of a discussion of the Declaration on independence and 
freedom for the colonial peoples at the plenary meeting of the 
General Assembly. The colonialists understand the difference 
between a discussion "behind the scenes" and at a "solemn meet- 
ing." I sit in the hall and look at the backs of Spaniards. As soon 
as some colonialist hints at support for the policy of the colonial- 
ists, they applaud. Why? Because they are colonialists! There is 
a saying: "The devil does not gore his own!" because devils know 
when to use their horns. And a colonialist supports a colonialist! 

It is pleasant to live in times like these, when great events 
are taking place, when the colonial system is collapsing! The 
honor has fallen to our lot to take a spade and to dig a deep 
grave, to bury colonialism deep in the ground and to drive an 
aspen stake into it, that it may never rise again. According to an 
old belief of the people, if you bury the devil you must drive an 
aspen stake into his grave, that he may not rise from the coffin- 
so let it be with colonialism. It must be buried according to these 
traditions of the people. 

I am certain that we shall find the courage, and chiefly the 
correct understanding, to adopt a decision in keeping with our 
conscience, and our conscience must tell us that the time has 
come for all people to be free. 

May the representatives of the African peoples, the blacks, 
as they are called, forgive and excuse me. I do not know how 
this sounds to the Negroes, are they not offended? I want to ex- 
press my sympathies for them. It was a pleasure to me to listen 
to them. The colonialists said about these people that they had 
allegedly not matured for self-government. The representatives 
of the imperialists who took the floor here have themselves not 
risen to the level of a general human conception of freedom, or to 
the appreciation of this freedom that is shown by these people, 
the black people, who have torn themselves free of the yoke and 
are boldly expressing their thoughts and defending the interests 
of their peoples. That is a great joy. 

Some white men boast of the fact that they are white, and 
regard the black people arrogantly. But can one judge people by 


the color of their skin? One man has a black skin, another a yellow 
skin, the third a white skin. The most terrible thing is when a 
man, be he white or black in the color of his skin, has a black 
soul, that is a filthy soul. For this filthy soul cannot be improved. 
We greet our brothers, the black people, the Negroes, we 
greet all peoples who are fighting for their freedom and inde- 
pendence. We are helping them and shall help them, and all 
peoples must help them, and we profoundly believe that the 
time will come when the peoples of all countries will feel that 
they are brothers, when there will be no more exploited, no ex- 
ploiters. Only one banner will wave— the banner of friendship, 
the banner of peace, the banner of brotherhood, and on this ban- 
ner there will be inscribed the words— Communist Society. 


October 12, I960 

Speech at Dinner for Delegations of New UN Members 

Premier Khrushschev gave a dinner in honor of the delega- 
tions of a number of young African states and Cyprus. The dinner 
was attended by the heads of the delegations of Nigeria, Came- 
roon, Dahomey, Upper Volta, Cyprus, the acting heads of the 
delegations of Togo, the Ivory Coast, the Malagasy Republic, and 
Somali, and by representatives of the delegations of Chad, Mali, 
and Senegal. 

Also present at the dinner were N. V. Podgorny of the Ukraine, 
K. T. Mazurov of Byelorussia, A. A. Gromyko and the members 
and advisers of the Soviet delegation. 

N. S. Khrushchev congratulated the representatives of the 
new states on the achievement of independence, wished them big 
success and urged them to facilitate the liberation of those peoples 
who are still oppressed by colonialism. 

The head of the Cameroon delegation, S. Okala, the Minister 
of Foreign Affairs, spoke towards the end of the dinner on the 
newly emerging freedom in Africa. At the end of his speech he 
toasted chairman Khrushchev. 

Khrushchev replied as follows: 

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the words of greeting and the 
kind wishes addressed to our people, the Soviet Government and 
to me personally. I assure you, gentlemen, that the government 
and the peoples of the Soviet Union are fully aware of their 
responsibility. They realize that we are strong and that our 
strength, reason and will must be applied to the maintenance and 
consolidation of peace, against those who fan war. Our people 
want peace and friendship, freedom and happiness for all peoples. 

I should like to thank you in particular, gentlemen, for ac- 
cepting our invitation and attending this dinner unafraid of the 
fairy tales of those who depict us as "communists - imperialists," 


"communists - colonialists," those who picture us as more terrible 
than the devil. The imperialists want to depict all communists as 
if they swallow people, some from the head, and others from the 
feet. (Laughter, Animation.) 

To this I say once again: travel to our country, look at our 
life for yourselves and you will see for yourselves that the com- 
munists are not like that at all. 

I have been a Communist for over 40 years. Comrade Tupo- 
lev, sitting opposite, our aircraft designer, is not a Communist, 
he is a non-party man, but this does not prevent us from being 
great friends. In our country by no means all people are Com- 
munists and no one demands that all should be Communists. 
The population of the Soviet Union is 214,000,000 yet the party 
numbers among its members only some 9,000,000. And this does 
not hinder the unity and cohesion of our people. I repeat: come 
to the Soviet Union, see everything for yourselves. You can come 
to us on parliamentary and government delegations or as tourists. 
Choose yourselves the capacity in which you would like to come 
to us. 

You know that in our country power belongs to the workers, 
peasants and the working intellectuals. We have no capitalists 
or landlords. In the past things were different and the working 
people lived under very difficult conditions. I, for instance, began 
working at the age of eight or nine. In my childhood I was a 
sheep and cow tender working for an estate owner. At the age of 
fifteen I began working in a factory; later I worked in pits and 
at a chemical plant. Then for more than three years I fought in 
the Civil War. This is my biography. All ministers of our govern- 
ment have biographies like that, we all came from the people, 
from workers 1 and peasants' families and from the families of 
working intellectuals. That is why we well understand the peo- 
ple's needs. Today I am Chairman of the Council of Ministers of 
the greatest, the most powerful country in the world. 

The colonialists seek to depict us as "Soviet imperialists," 
as "communists - colonialists." Do not believe them. We want 
nothing from the peoples of Africa and other continents besides 
friendship. We are ready to help you whenever you ask us to. 
Our country has everything needed for successful development. 
Judge for yourselves, the Soviet Union has, as I said before, a 


population of 214,000,000 and 3,500,000 are added each year to 
the population. We have plenty of iron ore, coal and oiL The 
territory of the Soviet Union is vast: it stretches over 12,000 to 
13,000 kilometers from east to west. We have plenty of everything 
in our own country and as regards the question of communism 
this is each people's own affair and this question is decided by 
the free choice of the people of each country. 

Communism is not pie in the sky. Communism is the real 
and concrete conditions of the peoples' life: a short working day, 
good housing, the world's lowest rent, good clothes, well-fed and 
well-nourished children, free tuition for them, state stipends for 
students, free medical aid, pensions, abolition of taxes on the 
population, so that in five years we shall have no taxes at all- 
such are the elements of communism in reality, in practical life. 

Now in our country we have a seven-hour working day with 
a six-hour day for miners. In 1964 we shall start the transition to 
a six-hour working day for the country as a whole and to a five- 
hour day for miners, and in twenty years our working day will 
last not more than five or four hours. 

This year we shall make 65 million tons of steel and next 
year 71 million tons. This year we shall extract over 145 million 
tons of oil. 

Such is the rate of development of production in our country. 

We have boundless forest tracts. Our natural resources are in- 
exhaustible. What do we not have? We have no cocoa, coffee, 
pineapples and mango. (Animation.) But this is what you have. 
You can give these and other products to us and we in turn will 
give you our products in exchange. We shall be grateful to you 
and you, probably, will be grateful to us. Let us be friends and 
cooperate. Here is the example of Cuba for you. When the United 
States monopolies proclaimed an economic blockade of Cuba, re- 
fused to supply her with oil, we helped Cuba, gave her oil and 
bought sugar from the Cubans. 

There are no reasons why we should not live in peace and 
friendship. We sincerely want this friendship with your peoples 
and with other peoples. I invite you once more: come over to us, 
to our country more frequently; every time you come you will 
know it better and better and I am confident you will like it. 


We shall show you in our country anything you want to 
see. Visit any of our republics, look at the life of the peoples 
who before the revolution lived under colonial oppression and 
now live in freedom and happiness. You will see for yourselves 
how ridiculous are the fabrications of the imperialists about "the 
slaves of communism." 

I thank you once more, gentlemen, for your kind words and 
wishes. We wholeheartedly wish you success in life, and in the 
struggle for the independence and happiness of your peoples. 


October 13, I960 

Further Remarks on the Colonial Question 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 


I should like to say that the delegation of the Soviet Union 
is greatly satisfied by the fact that the representative of the United 
States has agreed that this most important question, the question 
of the liberation of the colonial peoples, must be discussed at a 
plenary meeting of the General Assembly. 

I should like to stress that this is not a point of procedure 
but of supporting the substance of the Declaration on the Aboli- 
tion of the Colonial System. We must ensure the establishment 
of conditions under which the peoples still languishing under 
colonial oppression may attain freedom and independence. This 
freedom is not being presented to them on a silver platter; they 
are winning it in a hard and bloody struggle. Millions have 
perished in this struggle. Therefore it is essential to give them an 
extended declaration, to point out in this declaration what colo- 
nial slavery has brought to these peoples, to point out the road 
to the liberation of peoples from colonial oppression, to declare 
that all peoples— black, white, yellow— regardless of the color of 
their skin or their religion—must be equal - 

I should like to say once again that there are no hopeless 
people. Even colonialists like the Spaniards and the British— and 
they are colonialists of the first water— even they are not hopeless. 
And with the proper ventilation of their brains, they begin 
properly to understand the question which is being discussed by 
the General Assembly session; even they have announced that 
they would vote in the affirmative. 

So you see what a nice company we are. Our socialist state 
which is guided by the Communist Party has submitted a proposal 
on the abolition of the colonial system for discussion at the 

plenary meeting of the Assembly, and we are very glad that our 
proposal is supported by the United States, and that even Great 
Britain— this classic colonialist country— will vote together with 
us. I take their hand and shake it. If we continue to act in the 
same way in the future this will only be to the benefit of all 
the peoples. 

Gentlemen, had the Assembly acted on the problem of dis- 
armament just as unanimously as on this problem, you can 
imagine what a step we could have made towards agreement on 
general and complete disarmament under strict international con- 
troll That is why I should like to ask you to draw the following 
conclusion: the peoples of the world must take their destinies 
into their own hands without expecting that this problem, the 
problem of mankind's future, the problem of war and peace, can 
be settled only by the Soviet Union, the United States, Great 
Britain and France. No. This problem concerns all people. 

We stand out only in that we possess the most perfect and 
the most destructive weapons. But this is not the main thing. The 
main thing is that should a war start, all the peoples of the world 
will suffer from that war. Therefore it is essential that all the 
peoples of the world should approach the problem of disarma- 
ment, of world peace, with the same feeling of responsibility with 
which they are approaching— have not approached yet, but are 
approaching— the solution of the problem of liquidating the colo- 
nial system. 

Thank you for your attention. 



October T3, I960 

The Threat to Universal Peace 

Speech at the General Assembly 


The United Nations General Assembly has passed a decision 
to include the question of the "threat to universal peace created 
once sent their spy planes into the air space of the Soviet Union, 
on the agenda of the Fifteenth Session. This is not a routine item 
on the Assembly's agenda, but an extraordinary issue which stems 
from actions which are incompatible with normal relations be- 
tween states which are not at war. 

It will be recalled that the American authorities more than 
once sent their spy planes into the air space of the Soviet Union. 
On May 1, 1960, literally on the eve of the Four Power Summit 
Conference at Paris, an American U-2 spy plane intruded deep 
into our territory and was shot down. 

President Eisenhower of the United States, far from apologiz- 
ing to our country for this crude aggressive act, declared such 
flights a state policy of the United States. Moreover, two months 
later another American war plane, the RB-47, intruded into Soviet 
territory, and again the brazen aggressor was bought down. 

Such actions on the part of the United States of America have 
a pernicious effect upon the entire international climate and are 
fraught with incalculable disasters. 

I already declared from this rostrum on September 23 that 
the Soviet Government considers that the question of the United 
States aggressive actions against the Soviet Union must be discussed 
directly at a plenary session of the General Assembly. 

I should like you to bear in mind that this is no complaint on 
the part of the Soviet Union. No, we are not complaining. The 
Soviet Union is strong enough to uphold the interests of its coun- 
try unilaterally. 


But we do raise this question before the Gener^ ^ 

because the United States has proclaimed its right to ^ ssem . ^ 

international law. The United States Government sa^ s t^^ 1 * 1 ^ 

espionage flights, such aggressive incursions are esse^,-^ s ^ 

security of its country. The United States is doing $ 0) j fc ° r . e 

because it has the right to ensure its security, has t ^ fa*^' 

violate the boundaries of other countries, in disregard f , lg 

tional standards. In this way the United States wants t j 

rule of iniquity in international relations. This is why t j le £ e 

at hand has assumed special significance. I repeat, tj^ ^ ues 10n 

dispute between two states but the question of the righ^ n ° a 

to independence and sovereignty, a question of th, e Q ^ S es 

devolving upon every state to respect the independent lga 10n 
eignty of other states. 

The aggressive flights of American planes have infri n 
the sovereignty not of our state alone but on that £" U ^°^ 
number of other states as well: they violated the heutj j*t ^ f 
itpr? fhe sovereignty of neutral An^ . 

Afghanistan, violated the sovereignty of neutral A. Ustr i a 

violated the sovereignty of Norway, Pakistan and txu*^' *\ e 

not a fact that these states officially protested to the tlni^'g * U 

when they learned about the flight of an American sp v ? a es 

their protests the governments of these countries decl^ reci n 

United States had not consulted them, had not aske^ ^ & . e 

for making spy flights over their territories. 

If such actions of the aggressors are not terminate - 

completely, if they are not condemned, the impressi 0ri j[ a ^ 

gained that the Assembly approves such actions on th e p ar * g £ , e 

United States and thus in a way encourages it to fu r th et ° G 

sive actions. It will thus gravely injure international j a ^ a gg res ' 

in a way this will legalize the right of every state to ecaus e 

.-'.■« ** Use such 

methods. And this in turn may have the results that { n , 

its sovereignty every state will have to rely only on j tSelf e ^ m S 




consequently reply to such an incursion with a retaij 

own forces. But every reasonable person will underst aric j 

in the 

might result in force being countered with force, and. tj^ at 
final analysis means war. Every country might estim^ te ^ . 
sion of planes in its own way, regard it as a military c 

^.. n «i-l.i ^^.v^lir *r^ curVi an lnnircinn wifll D TPfal" 

sequently reply to sucn an racurauui wmi a. jcu^^ 

Whether troops are sent across the borders of an th_ er ^ ° W " 

or planes are dispatched with aggressive purposes, tttfg coun r Y 
r r institutes 


an armed invasion of one country by another and it is in this 
way that the aggressive invasions of the territory of the Soviet 
Union should be regarded. 

If one side assumes responsibility for starting a war, the other 
side has the right to defend itself. It is compelled then to defend 
its sovereignty and repulse the enemy invasion, to strike in retalia- 
tion at the aggressor and at those bases from which the aggressor 
is making the invasion. 

These are the aspects of the question to which I wanted to 
call your attention, esteemed Delegates! In connection with the 
discussion of the question of aggressive flights by American planes, 
I should like to express the following wish of the Soviet Govern- 

Any conflicts between nations, even bloody wars in the long 
run, end with the signing of a peace treaty. Fortunately, we have 
never been at war with the United States of America. The only 
exception is the aggression committed against us by the United 
States right after the October Revolution. Then the United States 
sent over its troops to our territory to assist the rotten, overthrown 
regime of landlords and capitalists. But these troops were ejected 
from our soil by the young Red Army of the Soviet Union. Since 
that time not only have there been no armed conflicts between 
us, but we even fought together in a most bloody war against 
Hitler Germany and won a victory in this joint struggle. 

Even now we are doing everything possible and will continue 
to do so, not only to ensure peace between the peoples of the 
Soviet Union and the United States of America but also to ensure 
friendship between our peoples and our governments. We consider 
that this is quite possible if the other side too strives for the same 
end. The Soviet Union and the United States of America are a 
great distance away from each other. Both are rich and highly 
develop economically. Both countries have everything they need 
to continue developing, each in its own direction, in the directions 
chosen by the peoples of the Soviet Union and by the people of 
the United States of America. 

We are aware of the fact that the discussion at the General 
Assembly on the question of aggressive actions perpetrated against 
the Soviet Union by the United States of America is used by certain 
circles to bring the cold war to a higher pitch. Therefore the Soviet 


Government on its part would li^ e t0 do everything it can to 
prevent a further increase of tensi on i n Soviet-American relations. 

If the Government of the U nited states of America were to 
declare at the General Assembly that it regrets the aggressive acts 
perpetrated against the Soviet Uni 0n and other COU ntries, and were 
to give assurances that henceforth the Government of the United 
States will strictly observe the provisions of international law, re- 
spect the sovereignty of the Soviet Union and all other countries, 
we would regard such an assurance as recognition by the United 
States of America that it was wrong on this question and we would 
have received satisfaction. Thus i t WO uld be possible to draw the 
line and we would not insist on t he discussion of the question. 
That would clear the atmospher-^ re duce international tension, 
and make it possible to solve m 0l - e quickly the questions on the 
agenda, specifically the question of disarmament. 

If, however, the Government f tne United States of America 
does not want to display good wify w ni not condemn the practice 
of dispatching its spy planes to the Soviet Union and other coun- 
tries, the United Nations must ^ tn all severitv condemn such 
aggressive actions, since this is a case of absolutely unprecedented 
action on the part of a major power against other countries, ac- 
tions which are fraught with th e most serious consequences to 
universal peace and the security f na tions. 

This policy of the United St^ tes must be condemned and cut 
shor} so that such provocative incidents may not place the world 
on the brink of war. American ag gress i V e flights in fact even re- 
present a step beyond this brink. That is why it is impermissible 
to relegate to the background the most acute q Uest ions of a deeply 
fundamental nature, on the solu tion o( which tne destiny of the 
world depends, while the rostrum of tne General Assembly is used 
for chewing the hash concocted by the cold war exponents. This 
would be a real shame for the U n i te d Nations. The peoples who 
want peace to be strengthened and the international climate to 
become healthier will pass their stern judgment on what is going 
on in the United Nations and they will be right. The Soviet 
Government does not want this to happen. It wants the United 
Nations to justify the hopes of th e peoples and come forward as a 
serious instrument of the strengthening f p ea ce, as a loyal sentinel 
of the sovereign rights of states. 


October 13, 1960 

A Reply on the Question of Aggression 

Speech at the UN General Assembly 

Before speaking on the question of the aggressive actions of 
the USA, for which the Chairman has given me the floor, I should 
like to say a few words as a reply. I, too, am not deprived of that 
right, and I should like to make use of it. I want to say briefly 
and confirm the fact that the gentleman representing the Philip- 
pines is not a hopeless case; he does posses a rational kernel 
which may take root in his mind. He will come to understand 
things correctly and judge them correctly. But some time is pro- 
bably needed for this. We have a saying, "Each vegetable ripens 
in its time." This gentleman is probably in the ripening stage 
right now. He will ripen, I think, and come to understand 
problems correctly. 


I should like to avail myself of the right given to every dele- 
gate in order to reply to the speech by the representative of the 
United States of America. 

The representative of the United States declared that he 
was going to defend the interests of the United Nations. He seems 
to believe that the United Nations and the United States of 
America are about the same thing, that this is a branch of the 
State Department! We see, however, that this branch is becoming 

The representative of the United States claimed that America 
had committed no aggression against the Soviet Union in the first 
years that followed the October Revolution. I must remind him 
of something. He must have forgotten the memoirs of General 
Graves, the commander of the American Army which landed in 


Siberia. That general gave them a very original title. He must have 
understood, and correctly understood what he was doing. 

He called the United States intervention "American Adven- 
ture in Siberia." He was in Siberia, and he was thrown out of 
there by the Red Army and Siberian guerillas. I must say the 
American general's book is true to the facts to some extent. Read 
it, Mr. Representative of the United States; perhaps it will be 
of use to you some day. 

It is very useful to read sometimes! You see that what I am 
recommending to you is not Bolshevik propaganda literature, but 
the memoirs of your own American general. 

Now another thing. The Security Council has twice passed 
resolutions claiming that the Soviet charges of United States acts 
of aggression against the Soviet Union are unfounded. This is 
just what the Security Council has decided, unfortunately. It is 
for this reason that we have brought the matter before the 
General Assembly. What else could we do? 

What the American representatives are doing looks like the 
old story of the woman who pretended to be a virgin. But this 
virgin already has a child, and even two of them; and besides, she 
finds a way of giving birth twice within the space of two months: 
in May and then in July. 

They keep claiming that the United States is a virgin in this 
case, and that she has no children. But we and the rest of the 
world know that there was a U-2 in May and an RB-47 in July. 

What kind of Security Council do we have, if it fails to con- 
demn an obvious and insolent act of aggression? It is a Security 
Council which no one will respect! It is, excuse my sharp lan- 
guage, more like a spittoon than a Security Council! 

The Security Council must safeguard peace and prevent war! 
But look what the Security Council did when Secretary of State 
Herter and the United States President himself, indeed the whole 
of America and the entire world recognized that an American spy 
plane had been sent into the Soviet Union. The Security Council 
ruled that there had allegedly been no aggressive flights. 

True, the first thing the United States did was to He about the 
spy flight. But we knew whom we were dealing with. That is why, 
when the plane was shot down, the Soviet Government decided 
to make a vague statement so that the United States would not 


find out where the plane was downed, what happened to the 
pilot, and would not know that we had material evidence at 
our disposal. 

Then, we decided, the fish will swallow the bait. And our 
expectations were justified. The United States of America de- 
clared that the plane had not flown into the Soviet Union. The 
plane, don't you see, was on a weather observation mission. It 
flew over Turkey and the meteorological station was informed by 
the pilot that the oxygen equipment had failed and that the pilot 
had lost consciousness. Then, as the Americans reported, contact 
was broken off. Evidently, they said, the pilot came down over a 
lake in Turkey. We applauded these lies. You can imagine how 
satisfied we were when our opponents presented us with a vulner- 
able spot at which we could hit quite definitely. 

We then declared that this was a lie, that the American spy 
plane had been shot down near Sverdlovsk and that the pilot, 
alive and in good health, was in our hands. We announced that 
we had the wreckage of the plane, the instruments, to put it 
in a nutshell— all the material evidence. What did the Americans 
say afterwards? 

Herter then said: "Yes, we did fly. We fly over the Soviet 
Union because it has many military secrets and we must learn the 
location of Russian rockets in the interests of our security (you 
understand, in the interests of securityl) . That is why we sent the 
spy plane." 

The President of the United States confirmed this, agreed to 
this. But this is a shocking state of affairs, unprecedented perfidy. 
How can one tolerate this? 

The intruding plane also flew over the territory of Afghanis- 
tan, infringing her sovereignty, took off from the territory of 
Turkey, flew over the territory of Pakistan. The pilot was to fly 
to Norway and, in case of an emergency, to land in Finland. The 
United States did not ask for Finland's permission and Finland 
protested against this. 

Gentlemen, you can imagine to what dangerous consequences 
this leads. Powers is merely a pilot who wanted to earn big 
wages and ended a big failure. I believe that he deeply repents 
his action. Everyone knows that he who serves the golden calf, 
serves the golden devil, will always end in failure! When Powers 


was asked at the trial rf he , vouId have pressed ^ buUon ^ 

he flown with an atom bomb on board, he admitted: I was told 
to press the button at a ce ttain site , and T prfissed fe bmtQn _ 
And when he was asked agai^ would he w d ^ bumm 

knowing that the plane carri ed an atom homh> hg Hed . j 


You can imagine what , Vould have happened! The outbreak 
of war, or not even the outbreak of war but war itself! 

Gentlemen, we are all ^ dult and responsible le , Please 

understand that we are not r^ ising this question in order to humi- 
liate the United States of Arnica. We do not want this and did 
not want it when we shot do Vn the plane . You rcmembcr state _ 
ment in winch I said that the President pf the United States 
probably did not know of this fiight Though j sinned hdm 
my own conscience, I made this statement out of ct for the 

President to ease his position, t0 drag him out of the stinking pit 
into which he had landed. £ ut he lost his seI£ . control and said . T 
knew of the flight, I sanction^ it( this was in ^ ^^ of ^ 

Umted States, and m the interests of our security, and we shall 
continue such flights. 

And what are we suppose £0 do? We shot down ^ ^ 

shall shoot down such planes if thpv xrp wnt t„ «„ * •* j 

* it tncy aie sent to our territory and 

we shall hit at those bases fr nm tH w r i, .q,,,^,- „ , 

10111 wmcft aggiessive planes are sent 
into our country. We have n other way 0ud 

Underdeveloped country colonieSf unfortunately cannot do 
this, they have no such possibilities. But we are able to defend 

our homeland, to defend tjh p invJnlaktTi*** «* r 1 

' ^e inviolability ol our frontiers and 

to rebuff any aggressor! 

Do you want war? Do yo u provoke war? But we ^ ^ ^^ 
of any threats If you start a wai , we shall have nQ ^ ^.^ 
but to hit back. Each country has the rig l n to defend itse tf, to hit 
back if it is attacked. But we Want the United Nationg tQ denounce 
such actions and thus to de nounce not only the flouting of the 
sovereign rights of our state blU also the {iout[ q£ international 
law m general. The United States proc i aimed fl . hts over ^ 

territories of other states as its rightj as its nationa} . ^^ 
are we to do? To surrender or to rebuff such ft* 

If the United Nations G eneral Assembly does not understand 
the full seriousness of the q Ucstion and follows ^ ^ ^ ag 


the Security Council took, we shall not be able to respect such 
decisions, we shall be impelled to rely on our own strength. And 
you know that we have strength. We warn the Pentagon, we warn 
the American aggressors— let them not stage provocations, for we 
shall give them a vigorous rebuff. 

The United States representative said here that the President 
of the United States had said in Paris that there would be no 
more flights. Gentlemen, pay attention to these words. It follows 
that we are given some mercy from heaven. He does not say there 
were any nights and he does not say there were no nights, he says 
there won't be any more flights. But, saying this, he admits that 
there were such flights. 

What do we want? We want the President to say that the 
United States was wrong. We need the admission by the Govern- 
ment of the United States that it acted wrongly; we need an assur- 
ance that it will not do this in the future. But how are you acting 
Messrs. Americans? Today you say there won't be any more flights, 
yet yesterday you did fly and claimed that such nights were your 
right. Moreover, the President also said that he had cancelled the 
flights for his term of office in the White House. And this means 
that another President will be inaugurated and if the United 
States desires, the aggressive flights will be resumed. 

The new President of the United States may declare that 
Eisenhower had cancelled the flights but that he is not obliged 
to honor the pledges given by his predecessor. Can one tolerate 
such arbitrariness? 

It is also known that the President did not speak the truth. 
After his statement in Paris on the stopping of the flights, two 
months after the U-2 spy plane incident, a military RB-47 plane 
was sent into the Soviet Union. We shot it down. Before my jour- 
ney here to the session of the General Assembly, we learned that 
the Americans wanted to send a new plane into our airspace at 
an altitude of 25,000 meters. 

Then I told the United States Ambassador in Moscow that we 
had information about the preparations for that flight. The Am- 
bassador was warned that we were prepared to meet this plane. 
I told him: if you want to check our anti-aircraft rocketry, to test 
our abilities to shoot down planes at an altitude of 25,000 meters 


please go ahead. We have made preparations to demonstrate our 

The United States authorities cancelled the flight. But pro- 
vocations are still continuing. 

NATO military exercises were recently announced near the 
coast and frontiers of the Soviet Union on the Black Sea. I must 
say that when Marshall Malinovsky, the Minister of Defense, asked 
me what to do, I told him: you are the Minister of Defense, what 
do you suggest? 

He replied: I suggest that we alert our Armed Forces, espe- 
cially our rocketry, get everything re ady for action and arm the 
rockets with warheads. 

I told the Minister of Defense that he suggested reasonable 
measures because we did not kno w whether these were military 
exercises or preparations for war. 

Thus, I am here in America while our defenses are in readi- 
ness for action. 

What are the Americans doing? When I travelled to New 
*ork on the liner "Baltika," United States planes buzzed our ship. 
Furthermore, within two days of the journey to New York I saw 
a submarine following our ship. I think that wisdom is not needed 
to guess what kind of boat this was. The question might be asked: 
Did you identify her? I have good eyesight; I am a man who 
suffers from farsightedness. At first I looked through field glasses, 
then 1 put them aside and saw the submarine. I found it easy to 
identify her because we know this kind of weapon. We also have 
submarines and not bad submarines. 

What was the purpose of this new provocation? Do you want 
to frighten us? But we are not easily frightened. Maybe you 
wanted to sink the ship in which I was travelling? 

All right, I will go down to the bottom, but I shall drag you 
down also, be sure of this! 

The RB-47 plane made a spy flight on July 1 and we shot 
it down. The United States representative in his speech here has 
asserted that the plane was shot down at a certain distance from 
our frontier. One should point out that the United States authori- 
ties cite different figures in this respect. 

In this connection I recollect such an anecdote. One of the 
Russian generals fighting against Shamil took him prisoner. The 


general sent the officer who had captured Shamil to the tsar to 
make a personal report. You probably know that some military 
men have a weakness for exaggerating their own merits. This also 
happened in this case. The officer began to exaggerate when he 
described to the tsar his exploit in capturing Shamil. He told how 
skillfully he had acted, how he had attacked personally. But the 
general, knowing the weakness of this officer, sent another officer 
with him and told the latter that if the first officer put on airs the 
second was to tug his uniform. So when the first officer lied too 
much, the second tugged at him. The first began lying still more 
and the second tugged at him again. The first resented this and 
said: why are you tugging at me all the time? You were not there, 
and I was! 

Something similar happened with the American representa- 
tive today: he wants to lie and says that this is no lie. But I can 
also tug at him and say: Mr. Representative of the United States, 
we brought down your RB47 plane and it was brought down by 
our fighters over the territorial waters of the Soviet Union. 

Now they want to arrange international arbitration, in other 
words, a court of arbitration. The Security Council discussed the 
question twice. And the Security Council, figuratively speaking, 
recognized as a virgin a woman who had two children. How can 
we accept such a court? 

The defense of the sovereignty of our country is entrusted 
not to an international court but to our Armed Forces, to the 
Minister of Defense of the USSR. If an enemy intrudes into our 
territory, he must be smashed and thrown back. This is an in- 
stance of a court, the court of the peoples of the Soviet Union. 
There can be no other court for aggressors. 

The representative of the United States said that Khrushchev 
was wrong when he declared that the U-2 incident was the reason 
for the collapse of the conference of the heads of the four powers. 
He said that even prior to the conference the newspaprs Pravda 
and Izvestia had come out sharply against the United States. He 
added that these were newspapers which did not express public- 
opinion. Well, I should like to tell you that you are throwing 
stones even though you live in a glass house. In our country the 
press represents the people, while your press represents a hand- 
ful of capitalists. He who has money in the United States can own 


newspapers. If the editor writes contrary to the wishes of tj, 
monopolists, he is fired, sent to the devil. And the United State 
representative is well aware of this. I should like now to reply Q 
the substance of the statement by the United States represent^ 
tive. Yes, our newspapers came out sharply, but not against t^ 
United States, they came out against the statements made by ]yj r 
Dillon, Mr. Herter, and the Vice-President of the United States* 
I shall not name him in order not to intervene in the electio^ 
campaign for United States President. 

These United States statesmen made cynical speeches at fcjj 
time. We rebuffed them. This happened even before the U-2 flight* 
into the Soviet Union. 

To make it still clearer to the Assembly delegates wh ar 
statements I am referring to, I shall cite an appraisal of tli es 
statements by the United States President. When asked by a C o r 
respondent at a press conference whether he knew of these state, 
ments made by Dillon, Herter and the Vice-President, the Pre$^ 
dent of the United States said that he was aware of them ariei 
fully subscribed to the content of those statements. Hence, t fn 
was not just the viewpoint of Dillon, Herter or the Vice President 
this was already the policy of the President, of the Government 
of the United States. 

Thus, the President of the United States, the Pentagon and 
the State Department prepared the wrecking of the Summit COru 
ference. Then they thought that this, perhaps, would not influence 
Khrushchev. And they decided: let us resort to a stronger means 
They sent a spy plane against the Soviet Union as early as Ap^ij 
9. We tracked it, it flew over our territory but our anti-aircraf t 
men did not shoot it down and those guilty were severely punishes 
for it. Military men must always be on the alert, must always Br> 
vigilant. We told them that they would be punished more severely 
if they repeated this mistake. But the Americans understood thi* 
otherwise if the plane was not shot down on April 9, they though 
let us repeat this provocation. 

They sent a second plane on May first. But this time ou> 
anti-aircraft men tried to make amends and brought down jjj 
plane. We thanked them for it and lifted the reprimand. 

That is how things proceeded if one follows the chronology 
and the facts. 


I might be criticized at the Pentagon, but I think that the 
President followed in the wake of the military men. He himself 
did not want to aggravate relations with us. Though his term 
of office was drawing to a close, I did not refuse to meet him. 
But I know that this meeting would not have produced big re- 
sults. Yet I wanted to pay him his due as a man. , . . 

(At this moment, Mr. James Wadsworth, the United States 
representative, interrupted to say that Khrzishchev was insulting 
the President of the United States. The President of the Assem- 
bly ruled that this was not the case and asked Premier Khrush- 
chev to continue.) 

I was thinking that if it was ruled that I insulted the Presi- 
dent, maybe I should change to pantomime. Maybe I should make 
a speech without words showing how the plane flies and then 
imitate the sound made in bringing the plane down, 

I should like to tell the United States representative a little 
story. Two passengers were travelling in a train in Russia after 
the 1905 revolution. The passengers were engaged in a conversa- 
tion. It was a third-class carriage, and other people were sitting 
opposite listening to the conversation between the two passengers. 
One said to the other: 

"The tsar is a fooll" 

A gendarme, sitting on the other side of the carriage, heard 
this, approached them and asked, "Who said that the tsar is a fool?" 

The passenger replied, "I said it, Mr. Gendarme." 

The gendarme showed his indignation. "How dare you say 
that our tsar is a fool!" 

"Excuse me/' replied the passenger, "I said that the German 
tsar is a fool." 

The gendarme shouted, "I know my tsar— if anyone is a fool, 
it is our tsar!" 

I do not want to add anything to this. 

Esteemed delegates, 

In my speech at the morning meeting I said that an end must 
be put to this matter, a good end. It is true, it is difficult to find 
a good end to a bad matter. But what is to be done? The virgin 
girl gave birth and the birth of the child hase been registered. 
Something must be done. The legitimate question arises— who is 
the father of the child, will he help to bring it up or not? 


We should like to have the Uni tfc j Cf f t A - A •* 
«.i_. ■. . „, , . ^ u ^d States of America admit 

that it committed aggressive acts. L<^ .*. a j i . j 

in* admit th h them find a relevant word- 

t^iL*-*-** - ■ ? S een ca mmitted which cannot be 

tolerated m peace time given nort^i r *■ t , 

„j w fc , . ° U£ u relations between states, 

and let them give an assurance that n, -n 1 ,-,- 

ivr~ t <-u i , Uiere will be no repetition. 

,, J! " to S P eecheS 7 ulc * be needed i£ the United States 
epre enuttve got up and made s^ ^^ Wfi 

accept this and the incident would b 

we fi ™! " le U , nited State V nsists , on bright' to such flights. Then 
we firmly mmt on our nght t0 dem ^ £ ^^J^ such 

between states. A violation of intern af 5 ,,.,.. V 
7f tt«j* i c, . % - ac ional law is the issue here. 

It United States planes continue to> * „ , . 

j ., , intrude into our air space 

and we are impelled to shoot them dew ,, , .„ , , 

a „ aA ^ . . , MW n, the peoples will be awak- 

ened at some tragic hour by a thev TT . n r r ~ 

„i r , "rionuclear war. Do you see 

the consequences of such a policy? Ti^ ■ , ■ 

„„„, . . . . . \ J UE lt is why we so passionately 

come out against this cynical aggressi^ H ^ 7 

Fellow delegates, I do not insi st P \. , . , „ 

*«,* *u *u i i on satisfaction for myself 

but for the peoples who resent such . cr .. / , 

m „„j „ i -,. ^ perfidious policy and de- 

mand assurances that military provnrv • -it t ■ 

,-i^t , i , ..., J r "Qations will be terminated. 

Only under such conditions can Oh P t , , .- 
av ^u, Aa i t r , take further measures to 

exclude war from the life of the peopi e 

How can talks on disarmament k ** »j • u 

n£ .1 u ^ held at a time when one 

ol the great powers arranges provocate a - u . .1 

„? „^ u ^ T r TT . ^ u Ve nights over the territory 

of another great power? What fa the Va , ue S Qf such ^ 

1 do not want to boast of our lA , , 

k«i;*.^i^ *u T.r . . weapons, nor do I want to 

belittle them. We are not m the s 3tN r .. 
#.„*~« *u * t r , , AL xie. position as some other 

states that have no means of defense: ^ , 

«*«***,* »*. • « - v„ , ^e can do more than merely 

piotest against aggression. We have t ^ 3Q r£ul 7 

to defend ourselves against affaressiovi T r, . " S 

^f *i,o TT«,*f ^ c*. * 1 " y° u recognize the right 

ot the United States to make provo r ^. a . , d , . 

™t* v^h.. + ,1, i 1 . Ci ^tive flights, then recognize 

our right to the resolute condemnation P +I & „ 5 , 

««♦ ^i« *k; in ■ , . . u of the aggressors. If you do 

not do this we shall exercise this tight it. • ■ . 

*.;«+** *t ^,^u * * , j r , • . c ourselves because it is the 

light ot each state to defend its terrify 

t? ^ j u „ ., ^ tc ^ry, its sovereignty. 

Esteemed Mr. President, esteem^ a\ * .St 

parting for home. I sincerely rejoice, 1 ^ ^ J?*? X "?! ^ 
t v^;^,v D . a ■ 1 1. , l Aough my skin is not black, 

I rejoice together with those who w^ ^ R{ J d fa ^ 

colonial slavery that we unanimously , . , ' t ... 
j; CM ,« e ,, Q i V* - r t ! ■ t 5* adopted the decision to 
discuss the abolition of the colonial =^ , 

'■rstem at a plenary meeting 


of the General Assembly. I rejoice together with you, and all 

upright people on earth share our joy. 

Today I should like to make a statement on the question. of 
disarmament and to move relevant proposals. Here are our pro- 
posals, our position: 

On Disarmament and on ilie Situation Created in 
Connection with the Fulfillment of the Resolution 
Passed by the General Assembly o?i November 20 ', 
1959 on this Question 

The General Assembly, 

Realizing that under conditions in which modern weapons 
are unprecedented in destructive power and range of action, the 
continuing arms race is fraught with tremendous danger for the 
peoples of all countries; 

Convinced that in the face of the danger of a nuclear-rocket 
war the problem of general and complete disarmament is the 
major problem of our times requiring an immediate solution; 

Reaffirming the resolution of the Fourteenth Session of the 
United Nations General Assembly #1378/14 of November 20, 
1959, on general and complete disarmament; 

Noting with regret that the aforesaid resolution has not yet 
been implemented and that no proper measures have yet been 
taken to implement it; 

Once again urges the governments to exert all efforts towards 
a constructive solution of the problem of general and complete 
disarmament and recommends the early drafting and conclusion 
of a treaty on such disarmament on the basis of the following 

General and complete disarmament must include the dis- 
bandment of all armed forces, the liquidation of all armaments, 
the cessation of military production, the liquidation of all foreign 
bases on alien soil, the prohibition of nuclear, chemical, bacte- 
riological and rocket weapons, the discontinuation of the manu- 
facture of such weapons and the destruction of stocks and all 
means of delivery of such weapons, the liquidation of agencies 
and institutions designed to organize military^ffairs in states, the 
prohibition of military training, the discontinuation of military 


General and complete disarmament shall be effected in an 
agreed sequence, in stages and in a set period; 

Disarmament measures, relating to nuclear weapons and con- 
ventional armaments, must be balanced in such a way that no state 
or group of states could obtain military superiority and that sec- 
urity should be equally safeguarded for all; 

The measures envisaged by the program for general and 
complete disarmament shall be effected from beginning to end 
under international control whose volume shall accord with the 
volume and nature of the disarmament measures taken in each 
stage. An international control organization with the participa- 
tion of all states shall be set up within the United Nations frame- 
work to effect control and inspection over disarmament; 

In conditions of general and complete disarmament neces- 
sary measures shall be taken in conformity with the United 
Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and 
security, including the obligation of states in case of need to 
make available to the Security Council units from among the 
police (militia) contingents preserved by the states for the main- 
tenance of the internal order and the protection of the personal 
security of citizens; 

In order to create confidence in the proper use being made 
of the international armed police (militia) forces and to preclude 
the possibility of their being used in the interests of one or an- 
other state or separate group of states, 

Deems it necessary to change the structure of the United 
Nations Secretariat and the Security Council in order to give 
equal representation to all three groups of states in these agencies: 
the socialist countries, the countries belonging to the Western 
power blocs and the neutralist countries, 

Forwards to the Disarmament Committee for consideration 
the Soviet Government's proposal on "The Basic Provisions of a 
Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament" and other pro- 
posals on this question for drafting a treaty on general and 
complete disarmament, including a system of international control 
and inspection, ensuring strict compliance with the treaty. 

We are ready to make no more speeches. Our proposals, our 
position are clear, let us discuss them point by point. Let us work 
out a decision which would satisfy all concerned on the question 


of disarmament, but under one condition— let us disarm and not 
agitate for control over armaments. We shall not take part in 
working out a system of control over armaments without dis- 

(Mr. Wadsworth of the United States interrupted to state that 
the head of the Soviet delegation was not speaking on the sub- 
stance of the question. The President of the Assembly overruled 
him and asked Premier Khrushchev to proceed.) 


Such are our specific proposals. But if the essence of the pro- 
posals which we set forth, is not adopted in the First Committee or 
if it becomes evident that the Western powers are resorting to 
subterfuge, we shall not work in the First Committee when the 
disarmament problem is discussed. Under such conditions we shall 
work neither in a Committee of ten nor in a Committee of fifteen. 

If the Western Powers display good will, we shall readily 
study and make use of all submitted proposals in order to work 
out a solution which would be directed towards safeguarding 
general and complete disarmament under strictest international 
control. (The representative of the United Kingdom interrupted 
here to say that the head of the Soviet delegation was speaking 
on a question which had nothing to do with the subject under 
discussion. The President explained that he saw no reason to 
interrupt Premier Khrushchev because the head of the Soviet dele- 
gation had advised him that he ivould like to make a statement 
on disarmament before his departure from New York. The Presi- 
dent added that the speech by the Chairman of the Council of 
Ministers of the USSR was apparently drawing to a close.) 

You, Mr. President, were right in saying that if this gentle- 
man had not interrupted me, I would already have ended my 

I should like to draw your attention, gentlemen, to the way 
these merchants trading in blood and human life raise the ques- 
tion. They are mainly worried over the formal aspect of the 
matter and it does not perturb them that the threat of a disastrous 
thermonuclear war hangs over mankind. They are shameless, that 
is what they are I # 

Mankind will remember your names, Messrs. imperialists. By 
the way, mankind cannot make them pay; for if a war breaks out, 


they will undoubtedly cease to exist, because Britain, which is 
often called in the West an unsinkable aircraft carrier will cease 
to exist the first day of the war. One need only visualize the mean- 
ing of nuclear war to know that it is imperative to do everything 
possible to avert war. 

But the gentleman who represents the United Kingdom here 
evidently fails to understand this problem. Let us believe that 
life will teach, if not you, then another representative. You will 
be replaced and other men will come who will understand the 
necessity of safeguarding an enduring peace and disarmament be- 
cause peace can be safeguarded only when there is disarmament. 
There can be no durable peace if armaments are preserved, if 
there is only control over armaments, because in such conditions 
each country can, if it wants to, make use of its armaments in spite 
of any control. I think that this is clear to everyone. 

I should like to hold your attention for a little while in order 
to dwell once again on the question of the United Nations Secre- 
tary-General. Gentlemen, speaking personally about Mr. Ham- 
niarskjold, I am not fighting him. I have met him and we had a 
very courteous conversation. 

I think that Mr. Hammarskjold owes me a debt because he 
exploited me when we entertained him on the Black Sea Coast. 
I took him rowing and he did not work off the debt, did not 
repay me in kind. 

This is not a personal issue. The point is that I am a Com- 
munist and he represents big capital. It is immaterial what capital 
he actually has in his pocket because, as you know, it is often 
easier to come to terms with a capitalist than with his lackey. 
Mr. Hammarskjold represents the interests of a definite group 
of states and does this successfully as shown by his actions in the 
Congo. He operated there in the interests of those who set him 
this task. They will thank him for this as they can thank those 
who work for the colonialists. 

But imagine that we reach agreement on disarmament and 
set up international armed forces. How can we tolerate that these 
armed forces should be under the control of one man represent- 
ing the interests of a group of imperialist states? No, this is imper- 
missible. Understand me rightly, I do not ask for privileges for 
our socialist countries. But I do not want to see privileges for a 


group of states of the imperialist camp, the camp of big monopoly 
capital because they use the United Nations Secretariat in their 
own interests. They used, it againt the Congo. They might seek 
to use it against us. It can be used against the Congo because this 
young state has no strength. It cannot be used against us because 
we have strength. 

The neutralist countries are a very considerable group of 
states as regards the size of their population. They are now eco- 
nomically weak, but human beings are human beings and their 
value is not determined by how many millions of dollars they 
own, but by the fact that they are human beings. Above all, one 
must respect their human dignity. 

That is why all three groups of states must be represented in 
the United Nations agencies on an equal footing and with equal 
standing. Only then will there be any certainty that disarmament 
and the forming of international armed forces will be possible, 
with the certainty that these international forces will not be used 
against any single state or group of states. 

Gentlemen, you can qualify my statement as you please, but 
I honestly tried to set forth our position. We are willing to sit 
down at a table for specific talks but only on condition that a 
proposal in the direction I mentioned be adopted. 

I beg you not to be offended if I said anything in not 
quite the way I should have. I hurt the Philippine representative 
a little; he hurt me. He is a militant man. I am a young parlia- 
mentarian; he is an old hand. Let us learn from each other. 

The Nepalese representative also taught us a good lesson 
in parliamentary conduct. True, I do not know whether Nepal 
has a Parliament or not. Upon my return home I shall look up 
a reference book to see how matters are there with Parliament. 

I wish you, gentlemen, big success— and we can achieve suc- 
cesses. This is borne out by the unanimously adopted decision on 
the colonial question. We Soviet people would sincerely rejoice 
if successes were achieved on such vital questions confronting the 
United Nations as the strengthening of peace and the creation 
of an atmosphere of friendship among the peoples. 

Thank you for your attention. Good-by, gentlemen. 

October 13, I960 

Departure from New York 

Today I, Comrade Gromyko, Foreign Minister of the Soviet 
Union, and other comrades are returning home. The Soviet Union 
will be represented at the General Assembly by Comrade Zorin. 

We are leaving in a good mood because we consider that some 
glimmer of hope appeared that it would be possible to solve major 
international problems through the United Nations, through the 
meetings of the General Assembly. We are most satisfied with the 
decision taken on the problem of abolition of colonialism. 

We are happy on two scores: first, because such a decision has 
been adopted. It can be said, of cource, that only a procedural 
decision has been taken concerning the place where this question 
will be discussed. But this decision has been taken by all delega- 
tions unanimously and this should be taken to mean that the 
General Assembly as a whole considers that colonial rule must 
be abolished. 

Secondly, we are happy because it is the Soviet Union with 
the support of all socialist countries that sponsored this resolution. 
And we have been supported by all peace-loving countries. Under 
public pressure the colonialists had to retreat and to join all the 
other delegations when the General Assembly was adopting this 

I should like to stress that this is not only a great victory for 
the peoples which are fighting for their independence. It is a great 
victory for all the peoples of the world. Had all delegates displayed 
an equal will and determination during the discussion of disarma- 
ment, had they realized the full danger of the present situation, 
the danger of an outbreak of a nuclear-missile war, the General 
Assembly could have taken an important step toward universal 
and complete disarmament. 

It is the Asian and African countries that I have mainly in 
mind, because the position of the countries which belong to the 



military, aggressive NATO, SEATO and CENTO blocs is perfect- 
ly clear. They are against disarmament and want only control over 
armaments, and this of course is not disarmament under strict in- 
ternational control, for which we are persistently working. 

We trust that the time will come when the peoples of all 
countries will thoroughly realize and understand the need to fight 
vigorously for disarmament, will demonstrate their will, and then 
disarmament will become a fact. As far as the Soviet Union is 
concerned, it is ready to do everything in its power to achieve 
universal and complete disarmament and we shall greet such a 
decision wholeheartedly. 

Thev accuse us of propaganda. But is the fact that we have 
submitted concrete practical disarmament proposals and are pre- 
pared to destroy armaments on the condition that the other side 
does likewise— is that fact propaganda?. 

We are ready to discuss this question in a businesslike manner 
so as to ensure concrete decisions which would put an end to the 
arms race and create all the necessary conditions for a tranquil life 
for all people now and in the future. 

We are sincerely striving to eliminate wars among states com- 

On leaving New York I should like to touch once more on a 
question of great importance which was raised by the Soviet Dele- 
gation at the General Assembly, the question concerning the im- 
perative need for changing the structure of the executive bodies 
of the United Nations. 

The events in the Congo demonstrated the complete bank- 
ruptcy of the present structure of the United Nations. And not 
only bankruptcy, I should say, but literally the threatening situa- 
tion which has arisen as a result of the fact that at the present 
time the executive bodies of the United Nations, primarily the first 
place the Secretariat, are dominated by representatives of imperial- 
ist states. 

The United Nations must really be an international instru- 
ment in which each state and each group of states have equal sta- 
tus, because at the present time three groups of states have distinct- 
ly emerged in the world— the socialist, the imperialist, and the neu- 
tralist groups. No one of these should have any advantages in the 
United Nations to the detriment of the other two. 

The Soviet Union will not accept disarmament so long as 
there is no confidence that the international armed forces, the 
formation of which is envisaged in the solution of the question of 
disarmament, are in reliable hands and will not be used to the 
detriment of any state or group of states. 

We demand no advantages for ourselves but we shall never 
resign ourselves to advantages for other groups of states. 

In conclusion I should like to thank sincerely the residents 
of New York for their understanding and for their friendly attitude 
toward members of our delegation and myself. During this time I 
received many letters and telegrams from Americans. In these 
letters and telegrams, as well as during personal meetings, Amer- 
icans assured me of their friendly attitude toward our people and 
toward our country, and I sincerely reciprocate their feelings. 

Of course there were some ill-wishers, the so-called picketers, 
who are mercenaries. But I realize perfectly well that this riff-raff 
does not represent the American people. 

I trust that the cold relations between our countries, engen- 
dered by the reckless actions of the authorities of the United States 
of America who have sent two planes over the Soviet Union, will 
be outlived. The time will come when the peoples and the govern- 
ments of our countries will live not only at peace but also in 

We have worked and will continue working toward this end 
and we expect corresponding reciprocal steps on the part of the 
Government of the United States of America. 

As to the friendly feelings of American people, their concern 
for peace, we have never doubted this and do not doubt this now. 

We wholeheartedly believe in peace on earth, in the friendship 
of all peoples of the world, and we constantly fight for it. 



October 20, I960 

Speech on Return to Moscow 


Dear Comrades and Friends, listening to the radio in other 
towns and villages of our great homeland! 

I should like to share with you the impressions of our parti- 
cipation in the work of the Fifteenth Session of the United Nations 
General Assembly and, in conformity with established tradition, 
give an account of the work done there. 

ff the question is asked whether it was worthwhile to travel 
to New York to this session, it can be said without any reserva- 
tions—it was not only worthwhile but necessary to go there. It is 
now acknowledged throughout the world that the current session 
of the General Assembly is of exceptional importance. 

The Soviet Government deemed it necessary that the most 
pressing, vitally important problems of our time should be discussed 
at the session. We considered that the most responsible statesmen 
should attend the United Nations General Assembly. The Govern- 
ment of the United States and its allies sought to discredit this 
idea, but as you know nothing came of it. 

Our position has received the warmest support in all the 
socialist countries, met with broad response and understanding on 
the part of the governments of many countries of the world. In 
order not to become isolated, the President of the United States, 
the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Canada and some 
others of their allies were impelled, as the saying goes, to change 
horses in midstream and to rush to the session. 

As world public opinion rightly points out, the Fifteenth Ses- 
sion of the General Assembly has been the most representative* 
international meeting ever held in modern history. The heads of 
state, the heads of government and leading statesmen from more 
than thirty countries of the world met there. 


Many highly important international problems have been sub- 
mitted for consideration at this session. The delegation of the 
Soviet Union proposed that such urgent matters should be dis- 
cussed as the question of general and complete disarmament, the 
abolition of colonialism and the granting of independence to all 
peoples and countries, the aggressive actions by the United States 
of America against other states, and the necessity of changing the 
structure of the executive bodies of the United Nations. The agenda 
also includes such questions as the restoration of the lawful rights 
of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations, the 
Algerian issue, and many others. 

The attendance at the session of delegations of the socialist 
countries headed by the leaders of those countries and also the 
attendance of the heads of state and heads of government of many 
other member states of the United Nations produced considerable 

Delegates seated in the spacious hall of the General Assembly 
listened with great attention and interest to the speeches made by 
many outstanding statesmen of our time. A strong impression was 
made by the speeches delivered by the heads of the delegations 
of the countries of the socialist camp: the President of the Czecho- 
slovak Socialist Republic, Comrade Antonin Novotny; the head 
of the Polish delegation, Comrade Wladyslaw Gomulka; the head 
of the Roumanian delegation, Comrade Gheorghe Ghcorghiu-Dej; 
the head of the Hungarian delegation, Comrade Janos Kadar; 
the head of the Bulgarian delegation, Comrade Zhivkov; the 
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Albania, Comrade Meh- 
met Shehu. 

The session was also addressed by the leaders of the delegation 
of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Comrade Podgorny, 
and of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Comrade 

The speeches made by the leaders of the delegations of the 
socialist countries resounded like the voice of a new, just world 
bringing to the peoples happiness and prosperity on earth. At the 
same time their speeches were a severe condemnation of imperi- 
alism and colonialism which cling to everything outlived and 
doomed by history, and create a threat to the peace and the secur- 
ity of the peoples. 


A big contribution to the struggle for peace and for the 
abolition of the colonial system detested by the peoples was made 
in the speeches o£ the President of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah; the 
President of Guinea, Sekou Toure; the President of Indonesia, 
Sukarno; the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru; the 
President of the United Arab Republic, Gamal Abdel Nasser; the 
head of the state of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk; and other 
representatives of independent states. A strong impression was 
made by the vivid speech delivered by Fidel Castro, the heroic son 
of the Cuban people and Prime Minister of Cuba, Many construc- 
tive proposals were also made in the speeches of other statesmen. 
The representatives of the imperialist countries, the defenders 
of colonialism, sought in every way to uphold and defend their 
position, often overtly, but even more often covertly. And, as you 
already know, battles flared up quite frequently at the session 
which this international organization has not known since its 

Our journey was also useful because we had many meetings 
in which we exchanged opinions with statesmen from various coun- 
tries on a whole series of vitally important international problems. 
All this promotes better mutual understanding and the establish- 
ment of closer relations among states. 

During the long years of existence of the United Nations 
much has been accumulated in it which needs resolute revision 
and adjustment in conformance with the present deployment of 
forces in the world. It can be said that the principal line in the 
proceedings of the first stage of the Fifteenth Session of the United 
Nations General Assembly was the struggle between the new, the 
progressive, and the old, the obsolete, which is retarding the 
development and growth of the new. 

Permit me, dear comrades, now to dwell in some greater- 
detail on the principal factors of the present international situa- 
tion and the activity of our delegation to the Fifteenth Session ol" 
the United Nations General Assembly. 

I. Changes in the World Since the Inception of the United Nationi 

Comrades, # 

The Fifteenth Session of the General Assembly is regarded 
by many people as a special session. This is quite justified. Tin* 


session summed up some k -. r , , , , , . ... 

TT . , ^ T . . . Results ot what had been done in the 

United Nations since its fa -, . 


It was rightly pointed , , . % . , «.■■., 

, . , . ° ' , . out at the session that great political 

and social changes have tak v i ■ tU ,•, '. ? r -, 

„, . b . ^n place m the world m the past fifteen 

years. These changes, abom, ni v ■ „, * - , r 

' £ , . °. ^ all, he in the growth of the powerful 

camp ot the socialist counk , T , ,■-,,■ 

,. L , , , . . ~nes. Now more than a billion people 
live and work under the bav, * • ,. ™, , , 

. , . , . . viner ol socialism. The emergence of the 

world socialist system is of a . . , , ? ' 

c -n , - , , - , decisive importance for the development 

of all mankind, for its desu- r 

After World War II ^ „, ,. . , _._ , „ ^ T . 

, . .^t the time when the United Nations 

was being set up, the capiv ,. . ..... , 

,, -° , . , l ^ahst system was still dominant in the 

world, the colonial system ,.;,., c , , , _, 

. . , \ was still firmly entrenched. Bier social 

changes have taken place l t , rft J * , 

r . ,. . L *i the fifteen postwar years. A number 

of socialist states have emer , . _ r ,».',., , , 

., , , ^ed m Europe and Asia. Not only have 

they emerged, but they hav -j, , . ■, ■, 

, ,C , .° . . ; e rapidly gained in strength, have up- 

held their revolutionary «\ i ■ -, T , , 

j. , . . / achievements, and have demonstrated 

their superiority over the k . ,. . , , 

r , J .... Capitalist system m the advance of the 

economy and the well-benm c ^ , , t , , 

„ ' . ^ oi the mass of the people, in the prog- 

ress ot science and culture l k r ° 

It is precisely the soci^ v , _. ,. . . . . . 

, r . ybat countries that are taking the lead 

in the pace of expansion of , . . . . „ 

. , r , production, in the exploration of outer 

space, in the peaceful uses » ^ r 

1 r ot atomic energy. 

We Communists were T , . , , . . , . , , 

, , . charged with being ravishers; with be- 

ing able to organize peop^ °, . * . 

° ,. ,° r r r ^e only m order to seize power; with 

trampling underfoot person , £ .. « . , - . r , , 

, . , *■■ , *al freedom; with being unable to cre- 

ate and organize the work cu - ■, - . Ti _ • ~ 

. , . & , f industry and agriculture. Our enemies 

tried to prove that we w<\ ,-, J , ° . % , 

r^, .j T , _ . ^uld not advance science and culture. 

They said that the Revoluv- , , . , . 

TATI J . , tion only destroys but does not create. 

Where are these gentlemen t , T . 

„ ^ r~. , , . ., , now * where are these armchair proph- 

ets? They have their tails b^ ^ ■ ^ , ., . T1 „ 

, ' ', , ^tween their legs; they are silent! What 

else can they do but keep sU . ■ 

Now it is clear to the » n , , . . 

£ . . whole world that genuine freedom, a 

fast pace of development K: t , - , ' 

c l \ ^ ut the national economy, the advance 

ol culture are there wher^ .u i • t. % t 

. . . v the people triumph, where the new 

m the organization of socie. ., , , . .. 

. & TT . ,. . ty prevails— that means where socialism 

triumphs. Under condition^ c • i* r , » ., , 

1 ... . * ol socialism a free people are build- 

ing a new hie on the loun^t ,_• r % , . it, 

° . . T r , . . uation of the teachings created by the 

great thinkers of mankind^x^ ^ . , _ . . _. . '. 

s Marx, Engels, and Lenm. The fruits of 


these teachings can now be seen by everyone, except, perhaps, the 
politically blind. 

The colonial world also sustained tremendous changes during 
this period. Colonial empires are tumbling down. It can even be 
said that the colonial empires tumbled down and their fragments 
are now cracking. India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon and other coun- 
tries in Asia cast off the colonial yoke. The exceptionally tem- 
pestuous process of the liberation of the peoples of Africa is now 
taking place. The long-suffering peoples of Africa are at last 
acquiring human rights. 

All these great changes taking place in the world cannot be 
ignored. When the United Nations was founded after World War 
II, the political map of the world was different, and this map 
determined the structure of this international organization. 

During those years the United States of America dominated 
the entire world. That country was the richest and economically 
the strongest. Evidently this also predetermined the fact that the 
headquarters of the United Nations were set up in the United 
States of America. Geographically, this creates very great incon- 
venience, all aside from the fact that the order existing in the 
United States does not facilitate the location there of such an 
international organization. If a headquarters for the United Na- 
tions were to be selected now, the peoples of Africa, the Africans, 
would hardly agree to its location in a country where Negroes 
are not regarded as human beings, where savage discrimination, 
even lynching, is visited upon them. 

All these and many other factors of international affairs bear 
out the fact that a reappraisal of values, a new approach to the 
solution of highly important world problems is now required. 

When the United Nations was founded, it was rightly en- 
visaged that its main purpose was to safeguard peace, to settle those 
issues which create tension and can lead to the outbreak of a third 
world war. The emphasis was laid on creating a body which could 
cope with difficulties and conflicts arising among states. With this 
object in view the Security Council was set up. 

The Security Council, very rightly at that time, was made 
up of eleven members, five of them being permanent members, ll 
was laid down that the United States of America, the Soviet Union, 


China, the United Kingdom and France would be the permanent 
members of the Security Council. 

I should like to emphasize that it was precisely these five 
states, each of which was regarded as a Great Power at the time, 
that entered the Security Council in the capacity of permanent 
members. The wisdom of the political leaders of that time who 
were the sponsors of the United Nations was that they recognized 
equal rights for each Great Power belonging to the Security Coun- 
cil though the socialist countries were in an absolute minority 
in the world at that time. 

The Soviet Union and the Mongolian People's Republic were 
the only socialist countries at that time. But the same rights were 
recognized for the Soviet Union, the socialist state, as for the other 
permanent members of the Security Council. A recognition of this 
equality found expression in the fact that the United Nations 
Charter laid down the principle of unanimity of the Great Powers, 
the right to the veto. No one, even if it were a question of four 
states against one, could take any cardinal decisions prejudicing 
the world, prejudicing any of the five Great Powers. 

In short, it was the capitalist countries that were predominant 
in the world in those days. But the founders of the United Nations 
were right in believing that the United Nations would be able to 
cope with the tasks it was charged with only if the majority— and 
it was the capitalist countries and colonialist powers that were 
then in the majority— did not use their position against the 
minority. Only under that condition could the United Nations 
exist, progress and fulfill the role for which it was established. 

What, then, was the political map of the world at the time 
the Fifteenth Session of the General Assembly openeclP This pic- 
ture, I repeat, is widely different from what it was when the United 
Nations came into being. 

To begin with, as I said before, there arose a world socialist 
system embracing the countries with more than one-third of the 
world's population. The socialist nations have enormous economic 
potential. They are producing even today more than one-third of 
the world's total output and nearly half of the world output of 
some key items of industrial and agricultural production. 

To continue. Upon the ruins of the colonial system there 
emerged many independent nations which are pursuing a policy 


of keeping out of the war blocs and alignments. These are India, 
Indonesia, Burma, the United Arab Republic, the republics of 
Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria and others. 

The position of the former great colony-owning imperialist 
powers has also changed essentially. By what right can Britain 
be considered a great nation today, while India cannot be con- 
sidered a great nation? Why? In the old days, the one who had 
a big stick was considered great. It is Britain that used to be the 
major colonialist power at one time. She brought other nations 
into submission by force of arms and ruled them by brandishing 
her stick. She seized all but half of the world, and that was the 
measure of her power. Today the situation is different. Since the 
end of World War II Britain has had to rest content with less 
than she had before. And that she still retains and oppresses some 
colonial countries through force and violence means a decline, 
and not an upsurge, in her power. 

Her soldiers still march the way they did in the Victorian era, 
and some in Britain do not want to realize that times are different 
from what they were then. Britain has long since ceased to be the 
workshop of the world and the mistress of the seas. 

France, another imperialist and colonialist power, has built 
up her might in the same way, that is, by conquering and ruth- 
lessly enslaving the Africans and the peoples of Asia. This great 
power has been at war with Algeria for more than six years and 
has so far failed to show her greatness by stopping her piratic 
policy. Times have changed. Today the peoples are fighting a life 
and death struggle for freedom against their oppressors, the colo- 
nialists, and are waging a successful struggle to defend their hu- 
man rights. 

Why, then, is France regarded as a great nation, but Indo- 
nesia is not? Why have India and Indonesia been put in a position 
different from that of Britain and France at the United Nations, 
and why, for instance, are they not permanent members of the 
Security Council? 

Or take the United States of America. She is still the mightiest 
capitalist power. But whereas in the old days the United States had 
a force of attraction, as the land of ascendant .monopoly capital 
and as one which has a democratic, bourgeois constitution, she has 
since forfeited this position. Today the United States is a rear- 


tionary state dominated by monopoly capital, a state which is 
pursuing an imperialistic policy, which is bound up with, and 
is the leader of, the colonialists. 

Everything in the United States is reduced to a state of sub- 
mission to capital and militarism, although a semblance of democ- 
racy is still kept up. Monopoly capital is in possession of everything: 
the means and implements of production, such powerful ideologi- 
cal vehicles as the press, publishing houses, television radio and 
the movies, all of which are being used to break the will of the 
people and to fool the mass of the people. 

In the past the United States had an economy and power that 
were in sharp contrast to those of the rest of the world. It is sep- 
arated from Europe and Asia by the oceans, and those were its 
insurmountable barriers during the wars that raged in Europe and 
Asia. The United States experienced no horrors of war, no famine, 
no ruin. Today the oceans are no longer an unassailable natural 
fortress of the United States. The United States is forfeiting its 
exceptional economic position, too. 

The Soviet Union and all the socialist countries have scored 
sweeping achievements in their economic development. We have 
surpassed the United States in a number of sciences, in the field 
of education, culture and art, let alone the superiority of the 
political and social system which have been won by the peoples 
of the socialist nations. 

The United States has long since lost the power of attraction 
she had before. On the contrary, there are some factors in opera- 
tion today which make the United States repugnant to other peo- 
ples and states. This is an essential change. This has not yet been 
grasped in full by the Americans themselves. One may say that it 
has not as yet been grasped by many people in the world, but 
they feel it, although they have not drawn conclusions from the 
changed situation. This is why the United States of America is no 
longer as great a nation in the world arena as it used to be, al- 
though it is still economically and militarily the strongest capitalist 
country in the world, 

China, at the time the United Nations was created, was bro- 
ken up and was little thought of. The reason why the countries of 
monopoly capital seated it on the Security Council must have 
been to tie China to the capitalist world so as to prevent her from 


being infected with socialist, Marxist-Leninist ideas. The imperi- 
alist powers wanted to keep the Great Chinese Wall intact for 
monopoly capital to use as a bastion, separating the world of 
socialism from the world of capitalism. 

But the Chinese people decided to live as they saw fit. The 
Chinese people, under the leadership of the Communist Party 
of China, won a great victory in their heroic struggle for libera- 
tion. The Chinese people effectively used the favorable situation 
which arose from World War II when the fascist forces had been 
routed in Europe and militarist Japan was defeated. The Chinese 
National Liberation Army had a rear on which it could rely. It 
smashed the army of Chiang Kai-shek who had by then gone over 
altogether to the side of the United States of America, the side 
of imperialism. 

Since China has become a People's China, Chinese in the true 
sense of the word, and since her government genuinely reflects the 
will and aspirations of the people, the monopolists and imperialist 
powers do not recognize her. The imperialists do not recognize a 
Chinese China, but do recognize as China the island of Taiwan 
occupied by the United States. People's China has not even been 
admitted to the United Nations, and she is not occupying her 
rightful seat there. 

Why does this happen? Has China disappeared? No, she has 
not! China does exist! Is she not as great as she was? Yes, China 
has become great indeed today, economically and politically a 
more powerful nation. China is not recognized because she has 
become a socialist nation. The fear caused by the emergence of a 
socialist China knocked all common sense out of the imperialists, 
and they began to deny the existence of the Chinese China. 

Well, we know what this means from our own history. Indeed, 
for a long time the most hard-shelled imperialists treated the Soviet 
Union as no more than a geographic entity instead of as a great 
nation. The United States of America did not recognize the Soviet 
Union for sixteen years. So, I repeat, we know what this means. 

True, even some bourgeois statesmen have lately realized the 
senselessness of the United States policy with respect to China and 
deplored it. From year to year it becomes more arid more difficult 
for the United States to uphold its policy of nonrecognition of 
People's China. At every session of the General Assembly the 


mechanical majority is whittled down and the policy of this 
mechanical majority in relation to China is laid bare. 

This policy will evidently fall through altogether before long. 
If God does not punish the government leaders of the United 
States and deprive them of their reason, the best thing for them 
would be to come out for the restoration of China's rights in the 
United Nations and for the expulsion of Chiang Kai-shek's puppet 
government. Will the United States statesmen be able to use the 
gift of God or not? Let us not try to guess. It remains to be seen! 
But if they should fail to act sensibly, they will have to swallow, 
in the near future, the most bitter pill for their policy with re- 
spect to People's China. 

People's China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Burma and other 
Asian states are playing an increasing role in world affairs and 
world politics. 

Vast changes have taken place in Africa, too, over the past 
few years. There were as few as three independent states in Africa 
when the United Nations was established. The entire territory 
of that continent was divided among the colonialists who had 
oppressed the African peoples for decades. The Africa of today 
is an entirely different place. There are twenty-six independent 
nations on that continent today which have a population of more 
than 180 million. A very significant point is that the independence 
of the overwhelming majority of these countries— sixteen out of 
the twenty -six— was proclaimed in this year of 1960. 

The delegates of the young African states said at the United 
Nations General Assembly that 1960 is the year of Africa. The 
whole of Africa is in the flames of a national liberation movement. 
Yet more than twenty countries and trust territories on the African 
continent are still under colonial rule. These countries have a 
population of more than 50 million. The peoples of the colonial 
and dependent countries are fighting against foreign oppression and 
they will win their independence, beyond all doubt. 

These are some aspects of the social and political map of the 
world fifteen years after the establishment of the United Nations. 

The imperialist powers— the states of monopoly capital— which 
form part of the war blocs of the Western Powers want to rely 
on their armed strength in order to perpetuate the predominant 
position in the United Nations which they had at the moment the 


United Nations was founded. They want to retain this predomin- 
ance at any cost, although history has, in fact, deprived them of 
these rights and, I would say— and this is the main thing-deprived 

them of such opportunities. The erstwhile economic superiority 
which once enabled the imperialist powers to bring pressure to 
bear on many nations of the world is being lost. The imperialist 
powers have likewise lost the former military superiority on which 
they relied in carrying through their "policy of strength." 

Yet the ruling circles o£ the imperialist powers are still nursing 
the illusion of retaining their erstwhile supremacy. 

It is quite natural and logical, therefore, that the delegation 
of the Soviet Union should have told the Fifteenth Session of the 
General Assembly that the structure of the United Nations is 
outdated. This structure corresponded to the relationship of forces 
and to the role and importance of the states as they were at the 
time the United Nations was established, that is, in 1945. But it 
is entirely out of keeping with the present situation. It has become 
necessary to modify the United Nations structure in keeping with 
the new relationship of forces of the three major groups of nations 
in the world— socialist, imperialist and neutralist. This point has 
been supported and appreciated by many delegates at the current 

We have not made any specific proposals as yet, but we have 
put forward some points of principle with regard to this question. 

The reason we have raised the question of changing the struc- 
ture of the United Nations executive authority is not because we 
want to have some privileges in the United Nations. Our position 
—the position of the socialist countries— is generally known today, 
and no sensible person can deny the importance of the lands of 
socialism in the United Nations. 

The United Nations itself cannot exist without the socialist 
countries. Why? Some may say that the socialist nations are in the 
minority today. But it is silly to judge the importance of this or 
that group of states in the United Nations by the number of 
countries these groups include. Unless one- third of the world's 
population, which is in possession of half the world's entire power, 
is represented in the United Nations, the United Nations will 
indeed become meaningless as a world organization. 


The triumphs of socialism have the power of attraction even 
for those who do not recognize our system but who can no longer 
shrug it off and ignore its sweeping progress. To ignore this is 
to be like a blind man, who says there is no light and no sun and 
that what the others say about light and the sun are no more than 
fairy tales. 

We consider that the United Nations should be improved 
as an international instrument created in order to prevent a new 
world war. The first thing to do toward this is to revert to the 
ideas and principles which were laid down at the time the United 
Nations and its Security Council were established, that is, to recog- 
nize the principle of equal terms for all nations and, above all, 
for those on which depends the decision whether there will be a 
new world war or not. 

While only five countries— the United States of America, the 
Soviet Union, China, Britain and France— were listed as Great 
Powers at the time the United Nations emerged, today the list of 
these great nations is quite naturally much bigger. One cannot, 
of course, fail to include India and Indonesia in this list while 
including Britain and France, not to speak of the restoration of 
the rights of People's China. 

The imperialist colonial powers, which are pursuing their 
own self-seeking group interests, have managed to spoil something 
of what was done when the United Nations was established. They 
have started acting in contravention of the United Nations Charter. 

The charter provided that the Security Council was to solve 
the most important problems by applying the rule of unanimity 
of the five Great Powers, the permanent members of the Security 
Council. Whenever the representatives of the Western Powers 
failed to steam-roller any resolution of theirs, they bypassed the 
Council by bringing those issues directly before the General 
Assembly session. 

Thus, the Security Council's supreme principle o£ unanimity, 
laid down in order to ensure peace, is being violated by them. 
They have bypassed this principle and want to get such issues 
settled by a mechanical majority or a two-thirds majority at the 
General Assembly in the hope that the voting machine will do this 
job for them. But this is no way out of the situation. All they are 


doing is opening a valve through which there can break out a 
conflict that could bring mankind to the disaster of global war. 

This situation increases the danger that the United Nations 
itself might push the world to the brink of war or indeed into the 
very cauldron of war. It is necessary strictly to observe the United 
Nations Charter with regard to the principle of Great Power un- 
animity in settling the most complicated international problems 
in the Security Council. 

But this is only one side of the matter. Account should also 
be taken of the altered conditions in the world, the new balance 
of forces in the world arena. The representation of five Great 
Powers as permanent members of the Security Council is already 
clearly insufficient. 

Consequently, the organizational structure of the United Na- 
tions must now be so arranged that the three groups of states- 
socialist, imperialist and neutralist— are on an equal footing in 
solving international problems on which the issue of peace or 
war largely depends. 

Those who insist on the old, who wish to preserve the old and 
do not recognize the new, do not understand that the old does 
not lead to the strengthening of peace. This old way is fraught 
with a great danger of war. Those who do not take account of the 
interests of all three groups of states and wish to exploit the 
international organization in the interests of one group— namely, 
the group of states of monopoly, imperialist capital— are not guid- 
ed by the interests of strengthening peace. 

That is why the structure of the United Nations should be 
altered and its executive organs made to fit the requirements of 
life, the principle of equal representation of all three groups of 
states. Otherwise it will not be a United, but rather a disunited, 

I have spoken of altering the structure of the Security Coun- 
cil. This, of course, fully applies to the executive organs of the 
United Nations, to its Secretary-General. No one man, however 
brilliant, can objectively express the interests of three groups of 
states simultaneously. 

It is quite natural that since the United Nations is now domi- 
nated by the United States of America and its allies— Britain, 
France and other countries of monopoly capital— which pursue 

an imperialist, colonialist policy, they nominate their candidates 
to the principal United Nations posts. Whose candidate is the 
present United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjold? It 
is clear to all that he is the candidate of the United States of 
America. The Swedes say that he is a representative of Sweden. 
True, he is a Swede by birth, but he is representative of the monop- 
oly capital of the United States of America in his political views, 
and he serves the United States. 

Let the Swedes not be offended by this. We too have our 
own Hammarskjold in the United States— Kerensky. He is Russian 
by birth, but whom does he serve? He serves American imperialist 
capital, and the Russian people have been getting along rather 
well without him for many years now. 

Of course each group of states would like to have its own 
candidate hold the post of Secretary-General. That is natural but 
unrealistic. Each group of states wishing to introduce its represen- 
tative into the United Nations executive wants to dominate, but 
our stand is that there should be no domination by any one group 
of states in the United Nations executive, the Secretariat. 

Consequently, the most radical and just solution of the ques- 
tion of both the United Nations Secretariat and the Security 
Council would be to apply the principle of equal rights, equal 
opportunities, equal representation. The United Nations Secre- 
tariat must consist of three secretaries. 

Objections may be raised that it will then be extremely dim- 
cult to settle various questions. But it is difficult to settle questions 
in the parliament of a single country too, especially in the parlia- 
ments of bourgeois countries, inasmuch as antagonistic classes exist 
there and each class has its own party and its own representatives. 
The ruling classes pursue their own policy, that of suppressing the 
other classes. In so doing they rely on capital, and capital is a 
great force. It seemingly does not vote, but it bribes; and its voice 
is therefore reflected by representatives of other classes it has 
bought over. But this happens within a state. 

To apply such a parliamentary system to an international 
organization is altogether untenable. The United Nations em- 
braces about one hundred states, and three systems of states stand 
out sharply in the world today. To start suppressing this or that 
group would be to take to the road of employing force, the road 



of preparing for war. And it is not to wage wars that the United 
Nations organization has been set up. It was established as an 
instrument for ensuring peace. 

To ensure enduring peace it is necessary that the interests of 
no group of states are violated, that international problems are 
settled with due respect for the interests of all three groups of 
states. Only then can peace be ensured. 

If a one-sided policy is followed in the United Nations, in the 
Security Council, the Assembly and the executive, if the interests 
of all three groups of states are not observed, the United Nations 
will be committing suicide. Its decisions in such cases will not be 
respected by all states. In such a case no group of states can oblige 
other states to carry out the adopted decisions. Such a situation 
can carry international tension to an extreme, and the conflagra- 
tion of a world war might flare up from even an accidental spark. 

The Second World War left the German question still un- 
settled. Large and small countries take part in the United Nations, 
but the German people do not. Italy has been admitted to the 
United Nations, as has Japan, formerly a militaristic state. Even 
Spain and Portugal, which are fascist states, have been admitted. 
Why, then, are not the German people represented in the United 
Nations? Because there is no peace treaty with Germany. The im- 
perialist states are artificially putting off the conclusion of a peace 
treaty. Thereby they try not to recognize the German Democratic 
Republic (GDR). But this is a foolish policy, because the German 
Democratic Republic has existed and developed for eleven years 
now. It is necessary to put an end to this state of affairs and con- 
clude a peace treaty with Germany. It is necessary to solve this 
question, to put on record the conditions and changes that have 
been brought about by the war, so that the German people may 
be represented on an equal footing in the United Nations. 

I repeat, the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany is of 
great importance for the relaxation of international tension. Pre- 
serving the state of war with Germany does nothing but poison 
the atmosphere, because all questions to be settled in signing a 
peace treaty have already won de facto recognition. 

It is now apparently necessary to put on record the existing 
state of affairs— the existence of two German states and the invi- 
olability of the frontiers established after World War II. 


No sober-minded politician expects anyone to give way or give 
up the gains of socialism in the GDR. Nor does anyone think that 
West Germany will give up its political and social system either. 
Therefore it is necessary to give de facto recognition to what has 
already taken shape and to record this in an appropriate treaty. 

With regard to West Berlin, too, we have time and again 
submitted a reasonable solution. 

The German question is now being used for political aims; 
it is being exploited in some states in the course of election cam- 

A presidential election is now approaching in the United 
States of America. The German question is an abiding feature of 
the election campaign; will the situation in Germany change or 
not, that is, will a peace treaty be signed with the two German 
states or will the present state of affairs continue? This subject 
crops up continuously in election debates. The aggressive circles 
insisting on the preservation of this hotbed of war are trying to 
exploit the German question in their policy "from positions of 
strength." But it is dangerous to try force in a situation like this. 

West Germany, too, is making use of the question of a peace 
treaty with Germany. And here is what happens. For example, it 
is said that in 1960 it is impossible to raise the question and reach 
agreement on the German problem because the presidential elec- 
tion in the United States is an obstacle to this. It is hinted to us: 
pay no attention to the talk about the German question during 
the election campaign. After the elections, on the other hand, it 
will be possible to reach agreement. 

But there will be an election in West Germany in 1961. There 
too the aggressive circles, the representatives of monopoly capital, 
exploit the German question, and there too some leaders hint that 
Chancellor Adenauer cannot be expected to abandon his point of 
view, because if he does, Brandt will win the elections. Have pa- 
tience, therefore, till the elections are over, and conditions may 
then arise for a more realistic approach to the solution of the 
German question. 

So the extremely important question of a peace treaty with 
Germany which requires solution and which is fraught with grave 
military dangers if abandoned, is continuously being put off. 


This question must be settled. And apparently it must be set- 
tled in 1961. 

Common sense must prevail. It i s necessary to sign a peace 
treaty, and the climate in Europe win then be entirely different. 

The steps undertaken by West Germany against the GDR-its 
violation of trade agreements, etc.— tetid to aggravate the situation, 
because the German Democratic Republic, too, can take corre- 
sponding steps; and all this, taken together, does not promise to 
improve the relations between state s . j t i s necessary, therefore, 
as we agreed with the Western Powers after the United States 
wrecked the Paris meeting, that no s t e ps should be taken that 
would lead to an aggravation of relations. We proposed a summit 
meeting after the presidential electi on i n tne United States in 
order to undertake fresh efforts to settle the issues in dispute, to 
reach agreement on the conclusion of a peace treaty with the two 
German states, and the solution on this basis of the question of 
West Berlin as a free city. 

We abide by these positions. And if another policy is forced 
on us, the responsibility for this win rest with the imperialist 
powers of the West. 

II. General end Complete Disa? mament_the Way to Enduring Peace 

Comrades, the Soviet Union has declared repeatedly that the 
question of disarmament is the hub $£ all the vital international 
issues of our time. 

Mankind has endeavored for m^my generations to solve the 
problem of ridding the world of destructive wars, the arms race, 
and the competition in perfecting the weapons of annihilation. 

In the past such hopes were foredoomed to failure. In condi- 
tions of undivided sway by the exploiting classes, with the society 
rent apart by irreconcilable class contradictions which imperialism 
had carried to the extreme, with more than half of mankind under 
the colonial yoke, continuous wars among states for a redivision 
of the world were a constant feature G f the life of society. 

Before the emergence of socialise all attempts to get rid of 
war were pious illusions, dreams. An<a sometimes they also served 
to delude people. It may be recalled, f or example, how the bour- 
geoisie asserted during the First World War that it should be won 
by the Entente powers so that there would be no more war. We 


know, however, that the First World War was followed by many 
others; and finally the fascists, with the connivance of the imperi- 
alists of the United States, Britain and France, started an even 
more destructive Second World War. 

Now that science has discovered weapons of unheard-of de- 
structive potential, any new world war would bring mankind 
untold calamity and suffering. We are convinced that mankind 
will not perish in the event of a new war. It will merely cast off, 
finally and resolutely, the rotten capitalist system that breeds war. 
The question arises, however: need the victory of the new be 
achieved at such a terrible cost? Must the establishment of a new 
system on the ruins of the old be paid for by the blood of hundreds 
of millions of people? Is there no other way? 

All people of reason understand the necessity for creating 
conditions which would preclude the possibility of the outbreak 
of war waged for the sake of the enrichment of some countries at 
the expense of others. The Marxists-Leninists see such a possibility. 

We Marxists-Leninists are fully aware of the complexity of 
the questions of war and peace. Wars appeared simultaneously 
with the division of society into classes. The danger of war and 
the grounds for it will be finally and irrevocably eliminated with 
the abolition of the division of society into the rich and the poor, 
into the haves and the have-nots, into the exploiters and the ex- 
ploited, with the establishment of a social system which will not 
be based on the bestial bourgeois principle that man is a wolf 
toward man. 

Such a world will have nothing in common with the world 
of capitalism governed by the law under which the stronger robs 
and exploits the weaker. In the countries of imperialism those who 
have capital have everything, while the common people— who 
work and create all the material and spiritual values but have no 
capital and are deprived of the means of production—are subjected 
to exploitation and discrimination. 

The ruling quarters of the United States describe the so-called 
American way of life as a model for the "free world." But what 
kind of freedom is that? It is freedom to exploit, freedom to rob, 
freedom to die of starvation when there are surpluses, freedom 
to be unemployed when production capacities stand idle. Freedom 
in the United States is a freedom for monopoly capital to oppress 


the working people, to bamboozle people with the bipartisan sys- 
tem, to impose its will on their partners in military blocs. Such a 
society provides the basis for wars between countries because the 
tendency toward reaction inside the country and toward expansion 
and aggression outside is characteristic of monopoly capital, of 

To preserve peace under the conditions of the undivided 
domination of imperialism would be impossible. But the situation 
changed with the emergence of a new social system, socialism, 
which is taking the place of capitalism. The socialist system is a 
more progressive one; it establishes new laws governing the rela- 
tions between people, new laws governing the relations between 
nations and states. Our conviction is that all mankind shall accept 
socialism, communism, a harmonious society which will know no 
antagonistic classes and will be based on the most humanistic 
principle: man is a brother and a friend to man. 

After the victory of the working class and working peasantry, 
there will be neither social, national nor any other causes for the 
outbreak of war in any country. But this will be only under the 
complete domination of the socialist, communist system through- 
out the world. Mankind will then represent a true commonwealth 
of equal nations. 

This was said long ago and scientifically proved by the found- 
ers of Marxism-Leninism. 

The liquidation of the capitalist system is the crucial question 
of the development of society. But only adventurists can think 
that a change in the social system can be brought about by un- 
leashing war between states. Social revolutions are not for export. 
They cannot be carried by bayonets or rockets. Just as we cannot 
even think of anyone imposing on us his own way of life, one 
alien to us, in the same way we have no desire to interfere in the 
internal affairs of other countries, because each nation has an 
inalienable right to its own way of life. 

The settlement of the question, what social conditions one 
chooses to live under, depends on the nations themselves, on the 
internal development and the ripening of conditions in every 
separate country. Which system is to exist in one or another 
country— socialism or capitalism— is not a question of international 
relations, nor is it a matter to be discussed at such an mterna- 


tional forum as the United Nations, where countries with different 
social systems are represented. This is a matter to be settled by 
the peoples themselves inside each state. 

It is necessary to take into account the real state of affairs, 
the world as it is. The present world consists of the countries of 
socialism, the countries of capitalism affiliated to the military 
blocs of the United States, and the countries not affiliated with 
any military blocs and following a neutral policy. 

Consequently we must search for such solutions of the car- 
dinal international problems as would take into consideration the 
conditions now obtaining— the simultaneous existence of opposing 
social systems in different states— and, in such a situation, would 
create conditions which would rule out the possibility of another 
world war. Nuclear war would cause the unprecedented destruc- 
tion of cities, factories and plants. It would lead to the annihilation 
of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people. It would destroy 
the values created by the labor of many generations and would 
affect all the countries, all the peoples. Its consequences would 
have grave effects on the life of generations to come. 

We would be committing a crime against present and future 
generations were we to put up with such an unenviable lot and 
not try to ward off the menace of a world war. It would also be 
unpardonable because socialism has given the working class, all 
the working people such strength, such possibilities for defense 
as we were unable even to dream of before the emergence of the 
socialist states. 

Such is our position on questions of war and peace. 

It would be naive to think that the capitalist countries would 
agree to disarmament if they were stronger than socialism. The 
situation now is such that the world system of socialism is at least 
no weaker than the countries aligned by the United States in such 
aggressive military blocs as NATO, SEATO and CENTO. The 
socialist countries now possess hitherto unheard-of means of in- 
fluencing the capitalist countries and, if you will, even compelling 
them to accept a disarmament agreement. 

Considering the movement for national liberation, the might 
of the popular movement for disarmament and peace in all coun- 
tries, and also the existence of peace-minded people among certain 
sections of the bourgeoisie, the chances for disarmament are fa- 


vored not only by our material capabilities for meeting any attack 
on the socialist countries with a shattering rebuff, but also by the 
support given to our struggle for peace and the termination of the 
arms race by all the peoples of the world. 

That is why the Soviet Government relies upon concrete polit- 
ical, economic and moral factors in submitting its proposals for 
general and complete disarmament. World war can be averted 
if all the peoples fight hard for peace, for general and complete 
disarmament, for the destruction of the means of waging war 
under strictest international control. 

Is all this possible? It is. No one denies that it is a difficult 
thing, but war— if it does break out— will be even harder for the 
peoples. That is why the question now is: should we Communists 
retreat in the face of these difficulties and consequently follow in 
the wake of those imperialist forces which stand for the continua- 
tion of the arms race— and if it is continued the result will be 
war —or should we, without sparing our strength, create a dam, a 
barrier to such a course of events? We are against fatalism, against 
inactivity on questions of war and peace. We should not underrate, 
but more especially we should not overrate, the capabilities of 
those imperialist forces which stand for the preparation of war. 

As long as imperialist states exist, as long as they are ruled 
by monopoly capital with its inherent drive for aggression, for 
imperialist war, there will exist a danger of a new war. But this 
is precisely the force that we can and must counter with a still 
greater force— the preparedness of the peoples to avert war, their 
determination to resolutely curb any imperialist aggression. 

There is such a force against imperialism— this force is the 
socialist countries, which are guided in their policy not only by 
the interests of the peoples of their own countries but also by the 
interests of the peoples of all countries, of all toilers. And these 
forces rely not only on socialist humanism. They rely on their 
socialist economy and they have mighty armed forces to defend 
the state interests of the socialist countries. 

Our strength lies in the fact that the interests of the socialist 
countries coincide with the interests of the toilers of all countries, 
including the working people of the capitalist countries. The 
toilers in the capitalist countries take the position of struggling 
for peace and peaceful coexistence. To all this we should add the 


continually increasing number of new states which have freed 
themselves from colonial oppression and which, as a rule, adopt a 
policy of nonalignment, that is, the road of a peaceful policy, thus 
destroying the former hinterland and reserves of imperialism. 
And although the imperialist states are trying to use the neutralist 
policy of a number of countries for their own purposes, and al- 
though the neutralist countries sometimes echo them in their 
chorus, this is a temporary thing. 

There can be no neutrality on matters of war and peace, be- 
cause all the peoples want peace and therefore all the peoples must 
fight for peace, against the threat of a new war. The process of 
demarcation of the forces of peace and the forces of war will ac- 
celerate and develop. And this process will increase the forces 
which stand for peace. 

The peoples of the noncommitted countries face a historic 
choice. The imperialist camp is attempting to involve them in 
the arms race, to place the manpower and material resources of 
these countries at the service of war. Imperialism does not offer 
them anything for doing away with the economic backwardness 
they have inherited from the colonial past. Imperialism does not 
desist from attempts to interfere in their internal affairs with a 
view to imposing a new colonial yoke upon them. 

The socialist community of peoples offers the young states 
a different path—the path of nonparticipation in the arms race, 
of developing their economy and culture, of tolerating no inter- 
ference in their internal affairs. 

Need one say what the choice of the peoples will be? No 
doubt they will choose the path of peace and freedom, and not 
the path of war and of new enslavement. And this choice immeas- 
urably increases the forces which stand for peace. As a result of 
the growth of socialism and the forces of peace, the balance of 
forces in the international scene is not in imperialism's favor. 

At present it would be wrong to gauge the demarcation and 
balance of forces of socialism and peace and of imperialism by 
applying the parliamentary yardstick. It is not the number of 
states ranged on this side and the other— on the side of socialism 
and on the side of imperialism-that determine the balance of 
forces in the final count. 

Many factors must be taken into account in assessing the bal- 


ance of forces: the economic and military potential, the population, 
and many other factors of a material and moral nature. In this 
case plain arithmetic may be gravely misleading. 

The arithmetical yardstick does not provide a clear enough 
idea even of the balance of forces within a state which has antago- 
nistic classes. It is well known, for instance, that it is not the 
number of parliament seats that determine the actual balance of 
forces of parties and classes in any particular capitalist country. 
The constitutions and election systems in bourgeois countries 
are drafted in such a way as to give numerous privileges to the 
ruling exploiting classes and not to the exploited, the working 
classes. This is exemplified by France where the Communist Party 
won 3,888,204 votes and 10 seats in the latest parliamentary elec- 
tions, whereas a right-wing bourgeois party like the Union in 
Defense of the New Republic, with 3,608,958 votes, won 188 seats. 
Just compare 10 seats with 188. I would say such a parliamentary 
method is of no use for determining more or less correctly the 
balance of forces within any particular bourgeois state. 

What then is the basis of power in bourgeois countries? Why 
is it that proletarian parties, while they have enormous support 
among the masses, frequently do not have a corresponding number 
of representatives in the parliament? Simply because the bour- 
geoisie resorts to various election machinations, leans for support 
on the forces of suppression-the police, the army, the judiciary, 
legislation which serves monopoly capital. These are the main- 
stays of the power of the bourgeoisie. It is based on the fact that 
the ruling classes own the means of production, the means of 
ideological propaganda, and the means for suppressing democracy 
and the revolutionary progressive movement. And this is exactly 
the dictatorship of monopoly capital. 

If such parliamentary methods are used to determine the 
balance of forces between the socialist and the imperialist coun- 
tries, the figures can easily be misleading and the picture they 
give incorrect. How then can one explain the fact that the young 
socialist state born in the October Revolution, which was the only 
one in the world, weak and shaky, was able to uphold its right 
to existence? Is it not a fact that our country was attacked at that 
time by fourteen states? Our land was ravaged by the troops of 
the United States of America, France, Britain, Germany, Japan 


and other states. The young Soviet state crushed these forces and 
ejected them. 

We must always remember Lenin's advice; politics is not 
arithmetic. The Soviet Union at that time leaned for support not 
only on its internal forces, on the working class and toiling peas- 
antry, but also on the international support of the working class 
and the progressive segments of society in the bourgeois countries. 
That is how it was even forty-three years ago. 

Now the situation is entirely different. The Soviet Union has 
grown into a tremendous force. Our economy is flourishing. We 
have a mighty and well-equipped industry capable of producing 
the most modern means of defense in the required amount. We 
have an efficient state apparatus. We have a great army of highly 
skilled engineers, technicians and scientists capable of solving any 
problems. We have a first-rate, modern army equipped with rock- 
ets and nuclear weapons. All the world is aware of the great 
progress attained by Soviet science and engineering. 

Furthermore, we are not alone. In Europe and Asia there are 
other countries which have embarked on the road of socialism 
and are successfully developing along this road. These new socialist 
countries have already made great progress both in developing 
their statehood, in the construction of socialism, and in building 
up their armed forces. 

I have already said that more than a third of the countries 
which adopted a neutralist position represent the former hinter- 
land of imperialism, the suppliers of manpower and raw material 
resources. Imperialism has lost these reserves and will not be able 
to return them to the colonial past. 

All these conditions should be taken into account in deter- 
mining the balance of forces, and it will then become clear that 
the forces of peace are not weaker now, but stronger, than the 
forces of war. This we should clearly realize in order to estimate 
our forces in a realistic way, so as not to underrate our own pos- 
sibilities in defending the policy of peace. 

Now, as before, the Soviet Union stands on the position of 
peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. 
But we are not begging for this peaceful coexistence. We are 
offering such a policy on the basis of a sober appraisal of the 
present balance of forces in the world. 



All the peoples will come to socialism, to communism. Such is 
the law of society's development. Some might say that if our 
forces are not smaller but even larger than those of our enemies, 
why should we not decide the issue by war? Why not accelerate 
the course of history? But history is not a horse, it cannot be 
driven with a whip. 

When bourgeois politicians say that the Soviet Union needs 
peaceful coexistence only as a temporary measure, that we Com- 
munists are only biding our time to touch off a war and thus 
change the political and social system in other countries, we say: 
you are lying. Marxism-Leninism asserts that the question of the 
balance of forces between this or that class is decided in every 
state by class struggle. And when the revolutionary proletarian 
forces increase, the proletariat decides the question of political 
power and social system as it sees fit, that is, in the interests of the 
proletariat, in the interests of the revolutionary class, in this or 
that way in accordance with the concrete conditions existing there 
and the methods used against it by the old ruling classes. 

Should we admit the legitimacy of war between socialist and 
capitalist countries for solving internal political and social prob- 
lems, it would be playing into the hands of the enemies of social- 
ism. The enemies of socialism would use this against Marxist- 
Leninist teachings, against the socialist countries. Then they would 
be able to say: you see what kind of a progressive system, what 
kind of progressive teaching this is, if it must be imposed on the 
peoples by force. 

Socialism is strong in its vitality, in the fact that it answers the 
deepest interests of the mass of the people. This has been proven 
by the entire practice of the building of socialism and communism. 

The ideas of socialism do not need violence to be spread 
among the masses. This is a truth known even to school children, 
but one which our enemies, the enemies of communism, are con- 
tinually trying to distort. 

What could better attract sympathy for socialism than the 
example of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries! It 
is universally known what a backward country tsarist Russia was. 
And it is universally known how far our country has advanced 
and how mighty it has become in the years of socialist develop- 
ment. Our once backward country has become a mighty, highly 


developed socialist power. Socialism has created conditions for 
the development of the economy, for the flourishing of culture 
and science that are unthinkable under the conditions of capital- 
ism. Even our enemies admit this. 

The force of example is a great force. The better our affairs 
are run and the higher the living standard in the socialist coun- 
tries, the more quickly we shall win people's minds over to social- 
ism. And this is a power which cannot be measured by arithmetic. 

Returning to the question of the capabilities which the social- 
ist countries possess for averting a new war, we should say that 
this important question is not decided by the number of countries 
which stand for peace and the number of countries which belong 
to the military blocs of the Western Powers. It is well known that 
at the present time the number of capitalist countries vastly ex- 
ceeds the number of socialist countries. And if we proceed from 
an arithmetical estimate, this might only mislead us politically. 

The present balance of forces enables us to raise the question 
and press for the practical solution of the disarmament problem. 
The idea of general and complete disarmament represents a power- 
ful weapon for rallying the people to the struggle for preserving 
peace and averting a new war. That is why it is the duty of every 
person and every nation to uphold this idea, to fight for it, to 
fight for peace, 

The Soviet Government has worked out in detail its position 
on disarmament and has presented it to the United Nations. These 
proposals have been forwarded to all countries in writing. The 
objective of these proposals, as I have already said in New York, 
is to prepare the conclusion of a treaty on general and complete 

Our idea is that at as early a point as the first stage of dis- 
armament all means of delivery of nuclear weapons to targets must 
be destroyed, along with the elimination of military bases on 
foreign soil, the liquidation of military aviation, etc. We also 
suggest the banning of nuclear weapons, and the discontinuation 
of their production and testing, and the destruction of all stocks 
of nuclear weapons. In short, we stand for genuine disarmament 
under international control. 

The British Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, said in New York 
something to the effect that disarmament talks might take five or 


ten years. But the arms race continues. Today three, or even four 
states have nuclear weapons. And how many will there be in five 
or ten years? Many countries will have such weapons. 

We are against procrastination* on such a major problem as 
disarmament, and we shall not agree to take part in deceiving the 
peoples with endless talks. Though Mr. Macmillan, the Prime 
Minister of the United Kingdom, is a Scotsman, I do not want to 
hurt his feelings by speaking of volynka. To a Scotsman volynka 
is the Russian for his national musical instrument, but I speak of 
volynka in the sense of procrastination on major problems. Our 
proposals are quite realistic. We insist on talks that would yield 
useful results and we are against talks that only befuddle and 
deceive the people. 

Some people in the West say that the Soviet Union has sub- 
mitted its proposals to the Assembly for propaganda purposes. We 
are not afraid of such charges. We are not issuing a call to war; 
we are demanding the creation of conditions for durable peace. 
And we shall continue to conduct such propaganda. It is not 
detrimental to the people. But if the Western Powers are afraid 
of propaganda in favor of peace, we are ready to forego speech- 

Here are our comprehensive disarmament proposals. Let the 
Western Powers present theirs. Let us get around a table and 
discuss point by point, in a businesslike manner, what is acceptable 
and what is not. 

I want to add that the responsibility for ensuring peace and, 
therefore, for reaching agreement on disarmament and the de- 
struction of weapons cannot be vested only in the countries which 
possess nuclear weapons. This is wrong and dangerous. 

There are no peoples indifferent to the solution of the disarm- 
ament problem. If any industrially underdeveloped countries which 
do not possess strong enough armies are excluded from doing their 
part in the solution of the disarmament problem, they will, as a 
result, not diminish but rather increase the danger of bringing on 
themselves, on the peoples of their countries and on all the world 
the military calamities of an unparalleled nuclear war. 

* Khrushchev used the Russian word "Volynka" which has a double mean- 
ing: either procrastination or bagpipe, (Eel.) 


Every people, large or small, every state, strong or weak, must 
now display the same interest and the same persistence in the 
struggle for the solution of the problem of disarmament and the 
destruction of weapons as they are displaying in their struggle for 
freedom and independence. 

The other day the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Macmillan, 
spoke at the Conservative Party Conference. He expressed satis- 
faction over the fact that he had gone to the General Assembly, "to 
this remarkable meeting," to quote his words, which was attended 
by representatives from nearly a hundred states. He admitted that 
humanity now was facing the choice of adopting either the path of 
violence or the path of negotiations for the solution of outstanding 

Mr. Macmillan favors negotiations on outstanding issues for 
the purpose of reducing tension. 

The Soviet Government agrees with that position and we have 
repeatedly argued that the policy of peaceful coexistence is not a 
tactical device but the general line of the Soviet Union in foreign 
policy bequeathed to us by the great Lenin. This was our position 
in the past and this will be our position in the future! 

But if Mr. Macmillan's statement about the striving to reduce 
tension is not to remain merely a pious wish, concrete, practical 
deeds are in order on the part of the Western Powers. Mr. Mac- 
millan admits that the question of disarmament discussion is not 
being resolved in deeds. An enlightening admission. 

If the position of the British Government, as Mr. Macmillan 
has said, really is that it wants disarmament and control simul- 
taneously, so that there may be disarmament and control at every 
stage, that is acceptable to us. 

The Soviet Government, now as before, stands for real dis- 
armament and has proven this by deeds, by effecting repeated 
unilateral cuts in its Armed Forces. If Britain and her allies— the 
United States, France and others— similarly display a real desire to 
disarm, the main and most important obstacle to agreement on 
disarmament will be removed and the road to disarmament will 
be open. 

Mr. Macmillan, if everything you have said was designed to 
solve the disarmament problem, let us, at long last, proceed to 


practical deeds and let us not delay indefinitely the solution of 
this most burning question. 

If this is your own opinion and the opinion of your allies, 
let us then have your amendments to our proposals or your own 
comprehensive proposals, if you do not like ours only for the 
reason that they have been advanced by the Soviet Union. Copy- 
right is unimportant to us; what is important to us is to reach 
agreement on disarmament which would relieve mankind of the 
danger of a catastrophic world war. The main thing for us is 
disarmament, and not who was the first to advance this or that 
proposal on this question. Before leaving New York I made a 
special statement on disarmament at the Fifteenth Session of the 
United Nations General Assembly. Our proposals have been pub- 
lished in the press and are known to the public. 

We have also presented to the United Nations a draft of "The 
Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarma- 
ment" which also contains provisions on a strict and detailed sys- 
tem of international control and inspection to ensure the observ- 
ance of the treaty terms. 

In the West they like the expression "showdown." To us 
disarmament is not a gamble. But if they want it that way, we 
shall put down our cards face up. 

It is now up to the Western Powers to act. True, these powers 
submitted new proposals to the Assembly after our departure from 
New York. One of them, submitted by the United States, Britain 
and Italy, contains, as conceived by its authors, the principles of 
the solution of the disarmament problem. Another, submitted by 
Britain, provides for the establishment of a committee of experts 
to study-what would you think?— the question of control! Mac- 
millan as orator calls for a concrete approach to the discussion of 
disarmament problems. Yet in fact there is no such concrete ap- 
proach. How can one understand such people? But life will teach 
them a lesson; it will also teach a lesson to Mr. Macmillan and 
other gentlemen like him. We can wait. We told him, "If you 
gentlemen want to test the might and endurance of the socialist 
state once again, we shall— as the saying goes -give you what for. 
Today we are strong and tomorrow we shall be still stronger and 
you gentlemen will not live long enough to rejoice at our weak- 
ness. We Soviet workers and peasants and our scientists, from day 


to day, from year to year, will give you cause for disappointment 
in connection with the growth and strengthening of the forces of 
socialism, the growth of the forces of communism. 

This has been a slight deviation from the prepared text of 
my speech, but I think it will be useful to those who do not want 
to heed the voice of reason today. As if the fifteen years which 
have been spent on discussing the questions of disarmament, in- 
cluding that of control, were not enough! 

Both these proposals show that the Western Powers are still 
not ready to approach in a serious way the solution of the ques- 
tions of disarmament, that they continue to make use of the talks 
on disarmament— including those at the current session of the 
Assembly— to cover up the policy of the arms race. Judge for your- 
selves, how else can one assess the aforesaid proposal concerning 
the principles of disarmament if it does not say a word about the 
liquidation of military bases on foreign territories, if it does not 
say a word about when, during what period this or that dis- 
armament measure should be carried out? In essence it is a pro- 
posal envisaging control over armaments, which was urged by 
President Eisenhower in the General Assembly, and not disarm- 
ament under control, which the Soviet Union has been insisting 
upon for many years. 

The aforesaid Western proposals are an ill omen for the 

If the Western Powers refuse to adopt the path of general 
and complete disarmament, we shall be entitled to the conclusion 
that they are not ready to disarm now, but do not want to say so 
openly to their peoples because the peoples of the West— the peo- 
ples of the United States, Britain, all the peoples of the world- 
want disarmament. The Soviet Union will continue to fight stead- 
ily and persistently for disarmament, for the strengthening of 
peace and the security of the peoples. I repeat, we stand for real 
disarmament, and everyone who stands for this will find they 
speak a common language with us. 

The peoples place great hopes in the United Nations, they 
want it to settle outstanding international problems and bring 
about conditions under which world peace would be reliably 


But I must say that if things go on as they are now, the United 
Nations will not achieve substantial results. The cart of the 
United Nations has cut a deep rut; it is rambling along this rut, 
and it is hard for it to get out of it. 

But had you seen the manner in which many delegates speak 
and behave at the General Assembly, you would have reached the 
conclusion that the United Nations may not justify the hopes the 
peoples are placing in it. 

Often the Hall is almost empty. The places reserved for dele- 
gations of a number of countries are occupied by delegates "on 
duty." Actually, they do not take part in the work of the Assem- 
bly, but sit there, apparently, only to vote in case a vote is taken. 
Such a representative "on duty" is like a robot or an automatic 
machine tool which operates according to a given program. He 
does not need to think, he does not need to exert himself; only 
one thing is required of him: to vote "yes" or "no" on some par- 
ticular question. It is impossible to influence the thinking of such 
a person; he acts strictly in conformance with instructions previ- 
ously received. 

This convinces us even more of the justice of our appeal to 
the heads of government of the United Nations member states 
urging them to approach with all seriousness the vital inter- 
national problems which face the world—the question of the abo- 
lition of the colonial regime, of the restoration of China's lawful 
rights, of the aggressive actions of the United States, and other 
questions, above all, the overriding international question-dis- 
armament-upon the solution of which the guarantee of world 
peace depends in the first place. 

It goes without saying that all these questions cannot be 
solved during one General Assembly session. Therefore if we are 
really striving to ensure durable peace, it is essential that the par- 
ticipation of heads of state or heads of government should become 
routine in the work of the General Assembly. 

As I have already said in New York, apparently the disarm- 
ament problem will not be solved at this session of the Assembly. 
Therefore we consider that it is essential to hold an extraordinary 
session especially on this question. It seems to us that such a ses- 
sion could be convened next March-April. If the heads of state or 
government which will take part in the work of the session solve 


in principle the question of general and complete disarmament 
under strict international control, after that, apparently, addi- 
tional work will be needed in a narrower sphere. For instance, 
heads of state or government could give direction to the work of 
a fifteen-nation committee whose establishment we have suggested. 
But I repeat, the questions of principle, the main questions 
of disarmament cannot be solved without the participation of the 
heads of government or state, because the mistrust among states 
has become too great and the differences in the approach of gov- 
ernments to the solution of this problem are too great. We must 
display a sober and daring approach, display statesmanship in 
order to send the cart of the United Nations on the right path. 
Who can do this? This can be done only by those invested with 
the full trust of their people, of their government. 


Freedom and Independence for Colonial Peoples! 

Comrades, the Soviet Union with utmost determination has 
raised before the Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General 
Assembly the question of complete and immediate abolition of 
colonialism— the abominable legacy of barbarism and savagery of 
past ages. True to its policy of supporting the struggle of oppressed 
peoples for national independence, the Soviet Union has called 
upon the United Nations to raise its voice in defense of the just 
cause of the liberation of the colonies. 

Many delegations in the United Nations have welcomed and 
approved the declaration of independence for colonial countries 
and peoples, and it has been warmly supported by all freedom- 
loving peoples. 

The colonial powers and their allies in aggressive military 
blocs stop at nothing to prevent the peoples of the colonies from 
attaining independence and freedom. Therefore the discussion on 
granting of independence to colonial countries at the United Na- 
tions General Assembly session is marked by a tense struggle. 

The freedom-loving peoples have scored a great success. The 
General Assembly recognized as a most important problem the 
question of the abolition of colonialism raised by the Soviet Union 
and has included it in the agenda of the plenary session of the 
Assembly. The recognition of the importance of this question 


represents a great moral satisfaction to the Soviet Union, a great 
victory for the forces fighting against colonialism. 

The situation at the General Assembly was such that even 
the imperialist colonialist states had to agree to a discussion of 
this question at plenary sessions of the Assembly. I shall admit that 
before going to New York, when our government discussed the 
problems of the General Assembly session, we envisaged the pos- 
sibility of the United States voting together with the Soviet Union 
for discussion of this question at plenary sessions of the Assembly. 

When the General Assembly considered the agenda, the Brit- 
ish delegate was the first to oppose the Soviet proposal. He at- 
tempted to prove that the colonies' progress and their liberation 
were well nigh the sole concern of the colonialists. 

The British delegate all but raised his hands to heaven, in- 
voking as a witness the Lord, who, so to speak, blessed the colonial- 
ists for their "civilizing" mission in the colonial countries. But 
who does not know that this activity was expressed in the enslave- 
ment of peoples, in the extermination of the indigenous popu- 

The blood in one's veins curdles when one reads about the 
kind of civilization the colonialists brought to the colonies. With- 
in half a century of Belgian domination the population in the 
Congo was reduced almost by half. People perished from punitive 
expeditions, from hunger and disease, and the Congo was no ex- 
ception. In the sixty years of French rule the population of Mada- 
gascar diminished by more than half. The infant mortality rate 
in the colonies is terrific. In Nigeria, for instance, more than half 
the children die before they reach the age of six. The colonies 
have the longest working hours, the lowest wages, the shortest life 
expectancy, the highest death rate. 

And all this is taking place in our century, a century of 
progress and the greatest scientific discoveries, when people have 
split the atom, are successfully conquering outer space and ex- 
panding their power over the forces of nature with extraordinary 
speed. Meanwhile representatives of powers which claim first place 
in the development of culture boast of their "civilization," speak 
of some "charitable deeds" of the colonialists. Listening to such 
"benefactors," one begins to expect them to ask the Assembly to 


express gratitude for their "civilizing," that is, colonialist policy 
of slavery. 

But the representatives of the peoples who have freed them- 
selves from colonial slavery spoke differently. The General Assem- 
bly session was addressed by representatives of India, Indonesia, 
Ghana, Guinea, Ceylon, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria and many other 
countries who unanimously demanded that this question be dis- 
cussed at plenary meetings of the Assembly and stressed the neces- 
sity of abolishing the colonial system. 

The representatives of the United States kept silent as though 
they were absent. But it was impossible to keep silent all the time; 
they had either to vote for the Soviet Union's proposal that this 
question be discussed at a plenary meeting of the General Assem- 
bly or come out in support of their allies— the colonialists. Of 
course, the United States imperialists are actually colonialists 
themselves; they impose enslaving treaties and exploit peoples of 
many countries. This policy is well known to the peoples of Latin 
America and of other countries. 

During the heated debate on this question nearly all the 
speakers were in favor of the Soviet proposal, and at last the 
American representative took the floor. I am very sorry that he 
did not complete his speech. The United States representative 
made slanderous attacks on the socialist countries which caused 
vigorous protest by the latter. The Roumanian representative, 
Comrade Mezincescu, ascended the platform and gave the Amer- 
ican a worthy rebuff. He demanded that the President of the 
Assembly Boland should not permit such insults. A rather curious 
scene followed. 

The President overshot the mark, he did not expect his main 
instrument—the gavel— to break, and he rapped it on the desk 
with such force that it broke into pieces. After the President lost 
this token of power, he made haste to declare the meeting closed. 

It is to be regretted that the meeting was closed. I believe 
that the representative of the United States would have completed 
his speech by supporting the colonialist powers. However, the 
night passed and it was apparently spent in meditation as a result 
of which the Americans arrived at the conclusion that the lesser 
evil should be chosen. It became clear that to come out with direct 
and open support of the British, Spanish, Portuguese and French 


colonialists would mean self-exposure. Therefore, the Americans 
decided to feign a noble gesture and come out in support of the 
proposal of the Soviet Union and the countries fighting against 
the colonial system. The British representative, who took the floor 
for the second time, also had to pretend that he was meeting half- 
way those who were insisting on the discussion of this question at 
a plenary meeting. 

The unanimous decision on the discussion of this issue at 
plenary meetings of the General Assembly is a major victory of 
the forces fighting for the eradication of the colonial regime. 

But I would like to warn you: it would be naive to accept 
the voting by the imperialist powers at its face value. It can be 
said that the unanimous vote was wrested from the colonialists 
under the pressure of an overwhelming majority. The representa- 
tives of the imperialist states decided to vote in favor of having 
this issue discussed at the plenary meetings, but this does not yet 
settle the essence of the matter. On the essence of the matter there 
has never been and never will be any unity with the colonialists. 
We stand for complete and immediate liquidation of the dis- 
graceful colonial system, for condemning colonialism past and 
present, for preventing the colonial system from appearing in any 
form anywhere in the future. 

The imperialists are trying to lend the colonialist policy "a 
noble aspect." They are even not averse to speaking about render- 
ing assistance to the countries that have freed themselves from 
colonial oppression. But what kind of "assistance" is that? Take, 
for instance, the speech made by the President of the United 
States at the session of the General Assembly. It contained no 
constructive proposals. The President declared that the United 
States was prepared to allocate to the United Nations program 
100 million dollars for assistance to the African countries that 
have gained independence. But if this sum were divided among all 
the population of the African countries which have gained inde- 
pendence, it would be 55 cents per person. As they say, this would 
not take you very far. In America 55 cents would not even buy 
you two packs of cigarettes. 

The imperialists used to plunder, and want to continue 
plundering, the African countries and now they are offering mere 
handouts. A dollar taken, a cent returned. They are offering hand- 


outs in the same way as the kulak* used to give five kopecks at 
Christmas to his laborer whom he had mercilessly exploited all 
through the year; or as a capitalist used, once in a while, to give 
a bucket of vodka for a whole arteLj- 

The imperialists may even pay lip service to the necessity of 
liberating colonial peoples, but they most probably will suggest 
a plan to protract the granting of freedom and independence to 
the peoples of colonial countries for many years. They will plead 
that no cadres are available, that the people have not been edu- 
cated, have not been prepared for self-government, and put forth 
other "theories" of the slave merchants. 

Listen to what a fine reply was given to these inventions of 
the colonialists by a representative of a young African state. He 
said: "If you want to be convinced that a man can walk, break 
the chains that bind him!" 

All the nations which truly adhere to the position of de- 
nouncing colonialism and liberating colonial peoples must firmly 
press for the complete and immediate discontinuation of colonial 
slavery. It is necessary to lift one's voice against the colonialists, 
expose their designs, no matter in what disguise they appear. 

It is natural that the oppressed peoples are intensifying their 
struggle for liberation, because the colonialists oppose the grant- 
ing of independence to the colonial peoples. And they shall win 
their freedom! There is no doubt that the freedom-loving peoples 
will offer their helpful hand to those who are fighting against the 
colonialists, the stranglers of the peoples' freedom. Nothing can 
avert the collapse of the colonial regime doomed by history. Colo- 
nialism is breathing its last, the peoples of the colonies shall be 

Comrades, the Algerian question is an important component 
of the problem of abolishing the colonial system, but it will be 
discussed at the General Assembly as a separate item on the 

For more than six years the Algerian people have been waging 
an heroic war for their liberation from foreign oppression. The 
French colonialists are trying with sword and fire to suppress the 

*A kulak was a well-to-do peasant who employed others to work his land. 
■f*An artel, in nineteenth-century Russia, was an association of independent 
laborers who worked collectively and divided their profits. 


Algerians striving for freedom and independence. But they have 
not broken and are unable to break the will of the people who 
have risen to struggle for their liberty. The noble struggle of the 
sons and daughters of the Algerian people is enjoying steadily in- 
creasing international recognition and support. In France proper 
a movement of true French patriots, who are actively opposing 
the colonial war in Algeria, is gathering momentum. 

The Algerian question has more than once been taken up by 
sessions of the General Assembly, but each time the colonialists 
succeeded in reducing these discussions to insignificant resolutions 
which did not render real assistance to the Algerian people The 
French colonialists, supported by their allies, the United States 
and Britain in the first place, emerged victorious, so to speak 
from the discussion of this issue. This time the struggle at the 
General Assembly will be much more vehement and" the colo- 
nialists will find it more difficult to reduce the matter to another 
toothless resolution. 

What is the Soviet Union's position on the Algerian question? 
It is absolutely clear. We have always been in favor of the self- 
determination of all peoples, in favor of every people choosing 
the social and political structure of its state. This fully applies to 
Algeria, too. 

We have repeatedly expressed our views on this question to 
the French representatives. I recall the talks with former Prime 
Minister of France Guy Mollet and Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Pmeau during their stay in the Soviet Union in May of 1956 We 
said then to the French leaders: if you do not take into considera- 
tion the lessons of Vietnam, you will undoubtedly find no way 
out of the deadlock in which you find yourself in Algeria The 
only way out for you is to recognize the Algerian people's right 
to self-determination. It is only on this basis that the Algerian 
question can be settled. 

Guy Mollet, and also Pineau, tried to prove that France can- 
not give up Algeria because two million Frenchmen live there 
Thus, according to their logic, this gives sufficient grounds for 
believing that Algeria must be French. We then replied to the 
leaders of the French Government: you speak of the two million 
Frenchmen in Algeria (and actually they number less), but the 
nine million Algerians cannot be ignored. 


We tried to make our interlocutors see this problem in the 
correct light. Guy Mollet and Pineau claimed that the loss of 
Algeria would mean the loss of France's grandeur. We tried to 
prove to them that the grandeur of France does not He in colonial 
plunder, not in the oppression of other peoples. But apparently 
the supporters of the colonialists do not want to reckon with facts, 
because they are carrying on their old bankrupt policy. 

If the French colonialists do not give up their attempts to 
retain Algeria as their colony by force, they will lose it as a result 
of a military defeat which is unavoidable. 

Soon after General de Gaulle came to power as a result of a 
military putsch, he made a statement to the effect that France 
recognizes Algeria's right to self-determination. But later, under 
the pressure of the extremist reactionary colonialist forces, he 
went back on it and began talking about the right to self-deter- 
mination, but only such "self-determination" as would predeter- 
mine in advance that Algeria would remain part of France. The 
most rabid French colonialists are demanding integration, that is, 
complete absorption of Algeria; they want to do away with Algeri- 
an Algeria and convert it into a French province in North Africa. 

The peoples of the Soviet Union, of the socialist countries, 
firmly follow Lenin's behests that every people must have the right 
to self-determination, to organize their state the way they like. 
Therefore our sympathy, our support are with the Algerian peo- 
ple, who are waging a just war for their liberation from colonial 

There are different wars. We are against rapacious, imperialist 
wars similar to that which the French colonialists are waging in 
Algeria. But we recognize and support the just wars of peoples for 
their liberation. The peoples of the oppressed countries are rising 
to the struggle to throw out the colonialists because the latter are 
not withdrawing from the colonies of their own free will. These 
peoples are not balking at taking up arms, if necessary, for win- 
ning their freedom and independence. The Algerian patriots are 
now waging such a struggle and we wish them success. 

We have already spoken about the Soviet Union's de facto 
recognition of the provisional government of the Algerian Repub- 
lic and want now to repeat this statement. This government has 
earned recognition by the whole world, including France. The 


French Government more than once established contact and en- 
tered into negotiations with the government of the Algerian Re- 
public, which is now regarded everywhere as the representative o£ 
the Algerian people, as its leader in the struggle for national 
freedom and independence. 

The General Assembly adopted a decision to discuss at its 
plenary meeting the question of the Congo as well. In their 
speeches at the Assembly the Soviet delegation, the delegations of 
other socialist countries, and also many representatives of Asian 
and African countries correctly assessed the situation now obtain- 
ing in the Congo and the unseemly role played there by the Sec- 
retary of the United Nations. 

Ineffaceable is the shame with which the United Nations cov- 
ered itself as a result of the policy pursued in the Congo by the 
United Nations Secretariat under the leadership of Secretary- 
General Hammarskjold. Due to the efforts of Mr. Hammarskjold 
and his representatives, the lawful Parliament elected by the Con- 
golese people and the government headed by Mr. Lumumba, set 
up by the Parliament on the basis of the Constitution, were dis- 
organized and paralyzed. 

And who are these representatives whom Mr. Hammarskjold 
sent to the Congo? They are Mr. Cordier and Mr. Bunche. Both 
are Americans. But you should not be surprised, because Mr. 
Hammarskjold himself is a servant of American monopoly capital. 
It was not for nothing that the United States Secretary of State 
Mr. Herter gave Mr. Hammarskjold a check for five million dol- 
lars to be used in the Congo at his own discretion to consummate 
the evil deed and to covertly restore the order which had existed 
there under the Belgian colonialists. 

The developments took a tragic turn for the Congolese peo- 
ple. But at the same time it tore the masks from the faces of the 
imperialist colonialists and those who serve them, from the face 
of the United Nations Secretary-General. 

Everyone now sees that he is pursuing a reactionary colonial- 
ist policy, expressing the interests of the imperialist group of 
countries headed by the United States. The developments in the 
Congo will serve to enlighten the colonial peoples, will help them 
to better understand who their friends ancf their enemies really 
3 re. 


And the failure of the policy of the colonialists is beyond 
doubt. The time will come when the Republic of the Congo will 
stand firmly on its feet and fully ensure its independence. The 
guarantee for this is the selfless struggle the Congolese people are 
continuing to wage and which will bring victory. The socialist 
states, all freedom-loving nations are taking the side of the em- 
battled colonial people, the side of the embattled people of the 

Comrades, all during the time our delegation was sailing on 
the Baltika toward the American shores, and while we were in 
New York, we constantly felt the attention and support of the 
Soviet people, our great Soviet homeland. 

We received thousands of letters and telegrams from different 
corners of our country. They were messages from the personnel of 
enterprises, colloctive farms, scientific institutions, Party, Soviet, 
trade union and YCL organizations, from numerous workers, 
collective farmers and intellectuals. These letters conveyed the 
most cordial wishes for success in the work of the Soviet delega- 
tion, expressed confidence that our delegation would do every- 
thing possible to see to it that the General Assembly Session would 
strengthen the peoples' faith in the relaxation of international 
tension, and would save mankind from the armaments race, from 
shameful colonial slavery. 

The Soviet people gave unqualified support to the position 
of the Soviet Government and demonstrated profound concern for 
the settlement of the most important international problems for 
the benefit of all the peoples longing for peace, tranquility and 
happiness for themselves and for the generations to come. 

All these kind messages gave us great confidence and inspired 
us to struggle for the strengthening of world peace, for the achieve- 
ment of solutions for the most urgent and vitally important prob- 
lems of our time. 

Permit me, on behalf of the Central Committee of our Party, 
on behalf of the Soviet Government and myself personally, to ex- 
press the warmest gratitude to the collectives of the working peo- 
ple, to all the Soviet citizens for their kind wishes. 

Our delegation also received thousands of letters and tele- 
grams from foreign countries likewise conveying wishes for success 
in our work for the benefit of peace. Many letters and telegrams 


were received from Americans who also expressed hope for the 
establishment of better mutual understanding among nations, foi 
the strengthening of world peace. 

Permit me to thank all our friends abroad for their kinc 
wishes, for the support they rendered our delegation in its worl 
at the Fifteenth Session of the General Assembly. 

I would like to offer cordial thanks to the crew of the turb( 
electric ship Baltika headed by Captain P. A. Maiorov, to thank 
the crew of the TU-114 plane and its commander A. K. Vidkovsk} 
for their fine work, for their perfect service. We crossed the 
Atlantic aboard the Baltika and arrived in New York, and the 
TU-114 plane brought us back to our beloved Moscow in ten 

It took us ten days to cross the ocean on the Baltika, while 
only ten hours were needed to return from New York to Moscow 
in a TU-114 airliner. What progress in technology! A different 
level, different possibilities! 

It is for the Soviet people to judge how the Soviet delegation 
fulfilled its mission at the General Assembly. We tried to repre- 
sent the interests of the Soviet Union with honor and dignity. We 
did not waste our time, fully realizing that we came to New York 
to work and not to eat pancakes. The more so, since the American 
Government, as you know from the press, had no intention of 
meeting us with bread and salt. But this did not embarrass us and 
we did our job as the sense of a great responsibility and the con- 
science of Communists— the fighters for peace on earth— prompted 

I should like, comrades, to share with you my impressions om 
the city of New York. It is a very large city. Gorky called it the 
City of the Yellow Devil. But more than fifty years have elapsed 
since Gorky was there and during this time New York has become 
still more repulsive. It seems to embody the ugliness and degenera- 
tion of capitalism. The people living there doom themselves to 
something like penal servitude for life and immure themselves in 
stone cells. Tall buildings are often torn down and replaced by 
new skyscrapers. The city seems to be crawling upward. Trees 
have been planted below in some streets, but they cannot grow, 
they wither and are obviously dying. They are replaced by new 
ones, but soon these too die. 


It is pitiful to look at children who are deprived of the many 
joys of childhood, because they have no chance to run about or 
even to walk outdoors, which is necessary for every human being. 
The streets are literally jammed by a vast number of automobiles. 
And automobiles, as is known, use gasoline for fuel. This is why 
the entire atmosphere is poisoned. To put it in a nutshell, New 
York is a horrifying city in this respect. 

The people who are responsible for the trend in city planning 
are unable to check the further degeneration of the city because 
neither the government nor the political leaders determine how 
the city is to develop; this is done by each owner of a plot of land. 
If it is to his advantage to tear down a fifteen- or twenty-story 
building and build one with forty, or even more stories on a 
busy street, he tears down the old building and puts up a new one. 

The main thing in this City of the Yellow Devil is not the 
man but the dollar. Everyone thinks of how to make more money, 
how to get more dollars. Profits, the quest for capital, and not 
people are the center of attention there. 

The capitalist trend in city planning takes little account of 
the vital requirements of the people. I could not but feel proud 
comparing this with our socialist city development, where plan- 
ning and building are subordinated to the man, concern for him, 
and the creation of more conveniences. 

Upon my return home to Moscow I literally delight in the 
fresh, invigorating air our people breathe. Our capital is a won- 
drous city, especially now when it is being transformed, when new 
sections are going up. Moscow is becoming an ever more wondrous 
city with comfortable houses, broad streets, squares, boulevards 
buried in greenery, children's playgrounds, ponds and parks. 

Comrades, I have already said that the United Nations in its 
present form does not justify the hopes of the people to rid them 
of the menace of war, of the armaments race. But we believe that 
common sense will prevail, truth will triumph, good seeds will 
give an abundant crop. The time will come, and it is not far off, 
when under the pressure of the peoples the governments will 
realize the necessity for the peaceful coexistence of states, will 
arrive at the conclusion that general and complete disarmament 
under strict international control must be carried out. For our 
part, we shall do everything we can to have the United Nations 


reorganized in line with the spirit of the demands of our time, 
to make it an effective and universal instrument of world peace. 

It must be admitted that the international situation continues 
to be tense. The aggressive quarters in the United States have not 
abandoned their aggressive actions, the provocative flights of 
planes over other countries' territories, particularly the Soviet 
Union. As you know, we submitted for the General Assembly's 
consideration the question of the aggressive actions of the United 
States against the Soviet Union. This item has been put on the 

A report recently appeared in the press to the effect that the 
Pentagon decided to send submarines equipped with rockets and 
nuclear weapons to cruise off the shores of the Soviet Union. 

American generals and admirals cannot fail to know that our 
country also has atomic-powered submarines equipped with rock 
ets. What would happen if we took the same road and our sub 
marines started cruising off American shores? 

This is the criminal "policy of brinkmanship" proclaimed by 
Dulles and pursued by his successors. This is the path of the "cold 
war" which may develop into a shooting war. 

Our relations with the United States have deteriorated of late, 
but not through any fault of ours. But no matter how cold our 
relations with the United States are today, we shall carry on the 
Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence. We are sure that the time 
will come when the relations between our states, our peoples, our 
governments will improve. 

But to bring this time nearer and to discourage the Pentagon 
and American aggressive quarters from staging provocation! 
against the Soviet Union, it is necessary for our economy to de- 
velop at a high pace, for our science to be on an adequate level, 
for our Army to have the most up-to-date armaments. 

It is necessary to do everything to raise steadily the productiv- 
ity of labor; to ensure the growth of the economy, science and 
culture; to raise the living standards of the people so as to demon- 
strate in practice, in peaceful competition with capitalism, the 
great advantages of socialism, the great might of the teachings of 

Our domestic successes are convincing^ illustrated by the re- 
cent report of the Central Statistical Board on the results of the 


fulfillment of the national economic plan for the first nine months 
of the year. These results hearten the Soviet people, the indefatig- 
able builders of communism, and inspire our friends abroad. 

Socialist industry, developing at an extremely fast rate, is ful- 
filling its plans year after year. This year industrial production 
will increase by more than 140 billion rubles. It should be noted 
that only a few years ago, before the reorganization of manage- 
ment in industry, the annual growth of industrial production 
amounted to approximately 100 billion rubles. 

You will remember that at the beginning of 1946, in drawing 
up the plans for the postwar development of our economy, the 
Party set the task of trebling industrial production and achieving 
an annual output of 60 million tons of steel and 60 million tons 
of oil. It was estimated that fifteen years and perhaps more would 
be required to achieve these goals. 

How have the Soviet people coped with this task? Fifteen 
years have passed and industrial output in our country has in- 
creased, not three times but six times over. The Soviet Union now 
produces 65 million tons of steel and upward of 145 million tons 
of oil a year. Equally fine progress is being made in our agricul- 
ture and cultural construction. 

The Communist Party and the Soviet Government devote spe- 
cial attention to training skilled personnel. Our country's successes 
in the training of skilled personnel have amazed the whole world. 

The opponents of socialism have even produced an absurd 
theory that the more engineers, scientists, doctors and teachers the 
Soviet Union has, the greater the difficulties we shall experience 
on our onward march. Well, we are facing these "difficulties" with 

Allow me to quote some highly indicative figures. In 1926, 
when we were about to regain the prerevolutionary levels of our 
economy, the Soviet Union had 168,000 students in higher educa- 
tional establishments and only a little more than 2.5 million white 
collar workers and intellectuals. Last year we had 2.2 million 
students, that is, 13 times more, while the number of white collar 
workers and intellectuals has increased eightfold and now exceeds 
20 million. The number of engineers, technicians and agronomists 
has increased 18 times; and scientific workers, 23 times over. 


The number of persons with secondary and higher education 
among manual workers has increased considerably, Before the 
revolution there were no people with secondary, let alone higher 
education among the workers and peasants; and today according 
to the latest census, 32 per cent of the manual workers have ;i 
secondary or higher education, including 39 per cent among thj 
workers and 21 per cent among the collective farmers. 

Thus in the years of Soviet power we have built up an arm) 
of more than 20 million brain workers— a truly popular intelli- 
gentsia, the flesh and blood of workers and peasants. Even more 
significant is the fact that almost a third of the Soviet people en 
gaged in manual labor, including two-fifths of the workers and 
more than a fifth of the collective farmers, have a secondary o] 
even higher education. 

AH this shows convincingly that we already have some very 
tangible achievements in gradually eliminating the essential dil 

ferences between manual and mental work. I could quote n 

other equally convincing examples attesting to the outstaniln. 
achievements of our motherland which is advancing confident 
toward the great goal of communism. 

Dear comrades, in little more than two weeks' time we shsitl 
be celebrating the forty-third anniversary of the October Social iftj 
Revolution, the greatest revolution in the history of mankind [| 
is pleasant and heartening to realize that the Soviet people, llm 
great builders of a new, Communist world, have achieved oul 
standing successes under the leadership of their own Part) uj 

True to the all-conquering teachings of Marxism-Lenin ■ in 
we are marching forward courageously, and no force in the woijtl 
can arrest this advance of the peoples to their glorious goal. 

Long live our Leninist Communist Party, the inspirer .nut 
organizer of the building of communism! 

Long live our Socialist motherland, the pride and glon 
all progressive mankind I 

Long live the mighty camp of the countries of Socialism! 

Long live enduring peace throughout the world!